# Ju88 vs De Havilland Mosquito



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

Thank you CC for proposing this site....here is a short history of each aircraft and then its up to you to give your arguments!

First of, the Ju-88.

The Ju-88 was one the most versitle aircraft of WW2. Its career began in 1936 and by 1939 it had been developed as a fast dive bomber and recon aircraft and was later used as a torpedo bomber, a nightfighter a heavy day fighter and an anti tank aircraft! The first fighter conversions of the Ju88 were similar to the bomber versions with only mods made to the nose and a gondola under the forward fuselage to accomadate radar and guns The aircraft was a formidable opponant throughout the war. 

It had a crew of four, the A series were bombers, torpedo bombers and a recon aircraft. They were powered by a paer of 1007kW Junkers Jumo 211J-` engines. The setup gave the bomber a max speed of 292 mph a ceiling of 26,900ft and a range of 1,700 miles. I usually carried one 133mm, three 7.92 and a set of twin 7.92 mm machine guns and 6600 llbs of bomvs. 

The nightfighter ususally had a crew of three. The engines weere a set of 1305kW Junkers Jumo 213A-1 with a max speed of 360 moh...(some difference to the convential bomber). It had a ceiling of 31500ft, and a range of 1360 miles. The weaponary is real impressive....Five or six 20mm cannons, and a heavy 13mm machine gun in the rear. The armaments were required to quickly down the large allied bombers at night. Later G varients alsso carried short range lictenstien radar to detect bombers after beinge vectored to them by operators on the ground.

Now for the Mossie

The De Havilland Aircraft Company was noted for its light saircraft, such as the tiger moth and some mixed transport planes. IN 1938, Dh proposed that they should build a bomber or recon plane that would be so fast that it could be unarmed. 

The mossie NF MKII had a heavy armament of four cannons and four machine guns. It carried the AI MK IV radar. Fighting forrom malta as a day fighter, it was also used as a night intruder. Because of its high speed crews needed some time to grow accomsted to the new machine. A prototype training model was also made with dual controls (Very good Idea). It had two 1,620 hp RR merlin 25 V12 Piston engines, it had a maxspeed of 362 mph with a cieling of 33000ft. The rabge was 1650 miles with a full bomb load. The Mossie or Balsa Bomber warried four 20mm cannons in the nose, Four 7.7mm machine guns in the nose and 2000 llbs of bombs or 1000 llbs of bombs and eight rockets.

Please let me have your opinions....on topic please!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 23, 2004)

Though the JU88 is a great bomber...it must be said there really is no comparisson between the two aircraft..at all 

Though i note you wrote a good few paragraphs about the JU88 the Mossie Only warranted a few lines - from this i can assume you are biassed? (the picture of the Ju88 on your signature was also the giveaway  )

For a start the Mossie was more of a fighter than a bomber (although it could perform both roles fantastically - something the JU88 could only do well at night) The Mossies top speed was actually 370mph - considerably faster than the JU88s 270mph. 
The Ju88 was made of metal, had a large crew and lots of weapons aboard...which automatically made it more expensive to mass produce and repair, slower, less manouvorable and an easier target than the mossie - the 'Wooden Wonder' was also used for far more things than you mentioned - for instance it was used as a Day-fighter, Night Fighter, Bomber escort, Reconassance, it was used to bomb airfields, ships, cities it was used to the navy as well as the airforce and stayed in service til the mid 1950s cos it really was that good  it saved this country ridiculus amounts of money on manufactoring as it was made almost completely out of wood - its speed was sensational making it almost impossible to catch by German fighters - it could carry a bombload equvilant to a B-17 heavy bomber (considering it was made out of wood and was alot smaller - this fact is particularly amazing! wartime losses of mosquitos were nothing compared to Ju88 losses (yes, i know more Ju88 s were built but even taking that into account - Ju88 losses were higher in comparison)

The Mossies service ceiling was higher 
Its range was longer

In fact the only things the Ju88 was better at was Torpedo bombing (cos the Mossie wasn't used for that although it did attack ships with a huge cannon in the nose) and the fact that it had a heavier bomb load...so 
Don't get me wrong - the Ju88 was a fantastic plane and did the Germans alot of credit

But really there is NO comparison

The Mosquito was the better aircraft by far...hell it even looked better

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Huckebein (Mar 23, 2004)

Here, here - I think I listed the Mossie's roles somewhere else on this site, hang on.

...

... Ah yes, here it is:



> It began life/ was designed and built as a high-speed unarmed bomber, but was found to handle so well, be so manoeuvrable and so fast that it was soon adapted to fulfill any number of other roles. During it's operational career the Mossie served as a bomber (you could even say 'heavy' bomber - late Mosquitoes could carry heavier loads than a B-17, but with 1/5 the crew at almost twice the speed and the same range), PR bird (the best available to the allies 'til jets turned up), fighter, fighter-bomber, night-fighter, intruder, heavy strike/ anti-shipping fighter (Fb XVIII 'Tsetse'), target-tug, trainer, glider-tug, VIP transport, BOAC airliner (flying the very dangerous runs to Sweden to pick up loads which included escaped airmen and political prisoners etc.), and I'm sure I've missed a few as well. Christ, it was even cleared for carrier operations(!), and a special squadron of 'Highball' Mosquitoes was preparing to ship to the Far East for carrier operations against the IJN when Germany surrendered and it was deemed unnecessary, now that the British Atlantic and Mediterranean Fleets were free to take part in the Pacific campaign. What's more, it excelled in all of these roles, whereas the Ju 88 never really did make the grade as a day fighter...
> 
> In short, I challenge you to think up a role which the Ju 88 took up, but the Mosquito did/ could not.



Ok, so we now have dive-bomber and torpedo-bomber as two roles that the Ju-88 took up and the Mosquito didn't, but I think that overall we have to agree that the Mosquito was far more effective in each individual role than the Ju-88.

Don't get me wrong - the Ju-88 was a fantastic aircraft to have on strength, especially due to its ability to do almost anything to an acceptable standard, but I know which of the pair I'd have if I had to choose...


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

I must say that you have both made some excellent valid points and i would like to take CC outside and shoot him for the idea of this thread!  (only kiding mate)

However...I still defend the Ju88 to the hilt....(can see this going horribly wrong!). I think it was an excellent aircraft and yes bronze, your right..,. al little biassed is a slight understatement. If you compare the Ju88 to other German aircraft you will see why i think it is a truly amazing plane.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 23, 2004)

I totally respect your opinion mate...but instead of just saying you think its a better plane...why don't you prove it by giving us info which PROVES its a better plane...sorry to say it mate but you won't be able to cos the Mosquito was simply a better plane and nobody would despute that (except you but i just think thats cos you're heavily biassed rather than factual)

Besides no-one is saying the JU88 was a bad plane (in fact we both said its a great plane) but it simply wasn't up to the Mosquitos standards sorry mate


----------



## Huckebein (Mar 23, 2004)

Heh - it was just luck in any case; neither plane was _meant_ to carry out so many tasks, it just turned out that they could. It's therefore no fault of the designers if one of them does this better than the other - the designers' success is measured by whether it performed it's _intended_ role well or not. Both of them did, both of them were good at other stuff too, the Mossie was better at other stuff. That's just the luck of the draw...


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

good comment!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

Huckebein said:


> Heh - it was just luck in any case; neither plane was _meant_ to carry out so many tasks, it just turned out that they could. It's therefore no fault of the designers if one of them does this better than the other - the designers' success is measured by whether it performed it's _intended_ role well or not. Both of them did, both of them were good at other stuff too, the Mossie was better at other stuff. That's just the luck of the draw...



I disagree - i think it was the performance of the individual aircraft that made the difference 'luck' doesn't really come into it

The Mosquito was groundbreaking and without a doubt one of the best planes (in my opinion THE best but thats arguable) of WW2 - the JU88 was good but the Norm in the way bombers of that period were designed - the Mosquito however is instantly recognisable because it was unique and was a fantastic plane - thats why it performed in more roles than the JU88 - it was better


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

I have already given my reasons as to why i feel the Ju88 was such a good plane.... I feel that you are saying that the wooden bomber is better cos it is more versitle...however if it wasnt then it wouldnt have met its spec...The Junkers were built and used for thier intended role. And were good at it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2004)

it's the mosquito


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

Awright geeezzaa! well, in yaaahr opinion maybe. 'owever i still think what da junkers was a Bobby Pe'a plane suited ter its task. Sorted mate.

Sorry mate decided to speak in rhyimg slang! Much more fun!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2004)

that's not cockner rhyming slang, that's scottish...................


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

Blimey! well, i' isn' is it???? I 'ave never been norf ov da M25. Let Billy No Mates been ter scotland! Nuff said, yeah?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2004)

stop doing that, face it, YOU CAN'T DO ACCENTS....................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> I have already given my reasons as to why i feel the Ju88 was such a good plane.... I feel that you are saying that the wooden bomber is better cos it is more versitle...however if it wasnt then it wouldnt have met its spec...The Junkers were built and used for thier intended role. And were good at it.



I'm starting to get annoyed now...JJ1982 - your arguments make little sense...did you not read my post at all? if you did you obviously skip-read it or something cos i mentioned lots of reasons why it was better. For example. Speed, range and ceiling. 

have a proper read and then get back to us yeah?


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

And what the hell is that supposed to mean??


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

it means


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

Right....how cryptic do you plan to be before you tell me what the hell you're going on about?


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

well in all honesty


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

You're just doing what i would expect...mucking about cos you've run out of steam - the arguement is mine i beleive

unless you want another round?  or manage to find a website that backs you up...you might have trouble though - they don't exist!


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

well, in all honesty, you dont expect me to win do you....


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

No, but i do expect you to be manly enough to admit when you're wrong....


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

i always admit when im wrong..... quite a lot then


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

Yeah cos you;ve got the guts to admit when you've been proved wrong - its different if its just down to opinion but in the case of the Ju88 and the mossie JJ1982 is clearly wrong so he should admit he is


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

yup


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2004)

> i always admit when im wrong



no you don't........................


----------



## Andrew (Apr 15, 2004)

The Mosquito was also capable of taking off on 1 engine with a full payload , as long as it had reached flying speed . Could the JU88 do this?

I have also read accounts of Pilots who have stated that the Mossie having 2 Engines , was an absolute waste of Rolls Royce Merlins , as it apparently flew just as well on 1 engine .

And in 1941 when the Mossie was still under development , a USAF General was treated to an Aerobatic Display by Geoffory de Haviland , and apparently he was doing this all on 1 Engine , and a book I read called "The Wooden Wonder" , stated that all this was being done at nearly 400mph .


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

> no you don't........................



yes i do


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2004)

> apparently flew just as well on 1 engine .



Yes, i read that on one of the test flights with a prototype an engine cut out (how embarassing), but he just kept flying and the air ministry were very impressed (not the impression they gave when the idea of a wooden plane was first submitted..................)


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 16, 2004)

On the 4th May 1941 , the prototype Mosquito's 100th flight-test achieved 392 mph at 22,000 ft. , weighing 16,000lbs.,[ faster than the then model Spitfire...] On 8 October with Merlin 77's [1710 hp.each,] a top speed of 439 mph was reached. The highest they flew were 43,600 ft. - Such were the first models, but the firepower, bomb weight [ a 4000 lb. ' Cookie' blast-bomb, ] rockets and mines, were superb for a two-man aircraft. - It didn't need torpedo's, with rockets and 20mm X 4 cannons, or .303 X 4 machine-guns to help aim the Molins 37mm or 57mm cannons [ 25 rounds in 20 secs, ] it punched holes in U-boats and ships, and it's remarkable wooden construction made them endurable and easily repairable. - The Mosquito was without doubt the most successful aircraft of WWII, nearly 8,000 were built of all variants and it's service extended until well after the War. - The Ju88 was a fine aircraft and an admirable opponent of the Mosquito, but it was heavier, not as powerful, not as well-armed and had more than 2 crew as a rule.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

Y'know reading posts like these just strengthen my resolve and really do show without a shadow of a doubt that the Mosquito belongs in the history book as one of the finest (IMO THE finest) aircraft to have EVER flown - it was truly an amazing work of genious


and of course it couldn't be anything other than British \/ 


Rule Brittania!


----------



## Son of Kai Tak (Apr 16, 2004)

The concept of the unarmed bomber was actually first proposed by Handley-Page although they just couldn't seem to get it together sufficiently well enough and in the end lost out to De Havilland.

The Mosquito really takes the title because for many years it was damn near impossible to kill. The Luftwaffe wasted massive resources in trying to find a solution and paid it the ultimate compliment by copying it with the Ta-153 Moskito. It was five miles per hour faster than the 190-A series at low altitude, and left everything else behind. Even the "Uhu" whose main purpose was top be fast enough and able enough to kill Mosquito's couldn't actually manage it that well. (See Eric Brown "Wings of The Luftwaffe.")

Also bear in mind that it's bomb carrying capacity was almost the same as a B-17. 

The Mosquito was used as a dive bomber by Leonard Cheshire and Micky Martin in 617 Squadron. They developed this technique to accurately deliver Target Indicators after they found the Lancaster was a bit too big to use in this way. In the end virtually all of No.5 Group used this technique as it proved to be extremely succesful.

Oh and they built them in Christchurch so it had to be good!

Choi Gien!


----------



## Andrew (Apr 16, 2004)

The concept of a bomber flying faster than most of the fighters around at the time, is not a new one , the DH9 (de Haviland Aircraft Factory Model No 9) which was first delivered to RFC Squadrons in 1917 , flew faster than most of the fighters the Germans had , but it did not have a much of a payload .


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 16, 2004)

allot of WWI bombers had the had same speed as the fighters............


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

Thats because their payload was usually a bunch of Hand grenades that they chucked off the side!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2004)

not true, the Handly-Page 0/400 could carry a 4000lb payload...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 18, 2004)

> not true, the Handly-Page 0/400 could carry a 4000lb payload...............



 wow, thats more than a stuka 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

but it couldn't carry it as far or as fast as the stuka..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

i know but its still more 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

more is no use if you can't get it out of your airspace.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

but they could bomb the frontline trenches 8)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 21, 2004)

For the British here, did any of you see the 'Daring Raids of World War 2' on Channel 5? 

The Amiens raid in 1944...and the Mosquito was the first to bomb Berlin in daylight. 

Mosquito takes the gold.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 21, 2004)

i read about that raid, the mosiie was the first to fly through berlin, they didn't drop any bombs, they just innterupted a parade by flying through the street at very low level..................


----------



## plan_D (Apr 22, 2004)

Yes they did drop bombs, Goebbels was about to have a aniversary speech of Hitler rising to power. The Mosquitos dropped bombs just as the radio broadcast was about to start and Goebbels had to take cover and the radio broadcast was delayed.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 22, 2004)

Well, being totally addicted and obsessed,[ above all other Aircraft,] in the DH98 de Havilland Mosquito, [ Hornet ], the GREATEST thing about them is that soon, they WILL be flying again, and in time, there will be a few.- As I've posted in here [somewhere] before, a man called Glyn Powell [and team] in Auckland, New Zealand, has re-built the fuselage moulds and recently made the first new fuselage [ in 50 odd years ], and involvement with guys in the Canadian Mosquito scene will soon see them flying again.[ For those interested, I think www.mossie.org has the updates...]- With todays glues etc. they will be even more durable.
Following the topic, they did alot of 'nuisance raids' like Berlin as mentioned, and drew enemy nightfighters off the Main Force bombers by their 'spoof' raids - they did actually target-mark as if the heavies were coming, drop some themselves, and shot-thru home. They also were probably the only aircraft to do two raids a night. Different variants would be up on nightly missions, first the weather reconnaisance, then target- markers with the Main Force and the nuisance/spoof raiders, the nightfighters, and finally the post-action reconnaisance Mossies for photo results.- I don't think any other aircraft can claim that sort of versatility....They were the BEST.


----------



## Andrew (Apr 22, 2004)

> Yes they did drop bombs, Goebbels was about to have a aniversary speech of Hitler rising to power. The Mosquitos dropped bombs just as the radio broadcast was about to start and Goebbels had to take cover and the radio broadcast was delayed.



There were 2 daylight raids on Berlin that day, the initial raid was done by 105 Squadron, which was the first Mosquito Sqaudron in the RAF, the second raid which was timed to coincide with an Anniversary Parade, through the streets of Berlin later the same day, was done by 139 Squadron which was the 2nd Mosquito Squadron in the RAF, but as there were so few Mosquitos available both raids were done using the same aircraft , as 105 109 Squadron had to share only the crews changed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 22, 2004)

> thing about them is that soon, they WILL be flying again



i think there is one flying already somewhere..............


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 22, 2004)

Since RR299 crashed in 1996, there hasn't been any flying, but there are about 30 odd survivors worldwide and folk are working on them. Glyn Powell purchased a T.Mk.43, or what was left of it, the woodwork being useless, and set about his task straight-off determined to get it flying. There's probably 4-5 that are possibly restorable to flying condition , mostly in Canada where they were made during the War - I try to keep up with what's going on worldwide, but haven't heard yet if any are - Have you anymore details of it ??


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2004)

i only know about brittish reagistered warbirds.............


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 27, 2004)

I've just checked on the Mosquito site and TA719, a B-35, is being restored at Duxford presently, but it doesn't say if it's to fly. It's been in the Imperial War Museum on display for some time prior to this...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 27, 2004)

i wonder if theres any b-25 rocs flying in britain... 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2004)

no, there aint...................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 28, 2004)

no one cares about 'em enough to waste money restoring that ugly sack o' crap....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

i wanna see a roc


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

i doubt any even servived the war...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

they deserve to survive the war.... it would have taken great men to fly rocs


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2004)

or stupid................


----------



## Gemhorse (May 1, 2004)

Bound to be one Stateside though...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

where?

and i'm afraid most Rocs finished their days as permanant airfield defences, baisically they only used them for their turret..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

shame


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2004)

not for the pilots that would have flown them...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

they were dead, they didnt know what was going on


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 4, 2004)

i wonder if there're any Roc pilots left.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 4, 2004)

nah i doubt it, if any did survive a sortie they probably topped themsleves straight after they landed so they wouldnt have to fly the beast again


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 4, 2004)

if they'd have survived a sortie they'd been hailed a hero, given a DSO, DFC and a VC.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 4, 2004)

yeah, then they would top emselves


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 4, 2004)

why would you top yourself if you had been given a DSO, DFC and a VC??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2004)

so you wouldnt have to fly a roc again


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2004)

i don't think they would put you throught the pain of flying it again, getting back in a Roc makes you an ace, so they would give you somethng better, like a defaint.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

> getting back in a Roc makes you an ace


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2004)

I'm sure quite a lot of people in percentage terms made it back. I mean, as a Wing-Commander why would you throw Rocs into a situation which is impossible to win. 
That situation for the Roc being any situation with an enemy aircraft.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 9, 2004)

I don't think the Roc was used that often. In fact I haven't seen anything about the Roc entering combat. I know that the Skua saw some.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2004)

more than some, it served for quite a bit of the war...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 24, 2004)

And I thought the RAF were clever...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 24, 2004)

CC, you already got 8,000 posts, stop posting in crap topics!


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 24, 2004)

LMAO.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 24, 2004)

yeah, leave some spam room for us...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 28, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> CC, you already got 8,000 posts, stop posting in crap topics!



I didnt have 8000 when I was posting here at the time...


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 21, 2005)

Before anyone starts having a go at the Skua, they did sink the german light cruiser Konigsberg, the first ship ever sunk by dive bombing. But by all means have a go at the Roc


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 21, 2005)

The Skua wasnt bad, it performed its job well. The Roc was just a Skua with a turret though, that was bad.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 21, 2005)

The skua did have a turret


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 21, 2005)

Did it?


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 22, 2005)

Sorry, my mistake but it does have a rear gunner with a flexible mount .303


----------

