# Ju88 is Luftwaffe's Mosquito



## wiking85 (Oct 28, 2012)

Ju88 v1





What if the Luftwaffe decided for a Ju88 that was built for speed, much like the de Havilland Mosquito? By this I mean they stay truer to the V1 prototype by having no defensive armament like the Mosquito, 2 crew members, a streamlined nose without glazed glass that reduced speed, no dive bombing requirement, and a 1000kg bomb load in its front bomb bay with 500kg secondary bomb bay for either more fuel or bombs. It would be about the same weight as the Mosquito empty, which is around 6000kg, and about the same equipped, which is about 8000kg. The production variant of the Ju88A1 historical was nearly 12,000kg equipped, so this version of the Ju88 would be much lighter, more aerodynamic, and thus faster.

This aircraft would not be made out of wood, but would embody much of the same idea of the Mosquito bomber for its design principles.

Mosquito:


----------



## GregP (Oct 28, 2012)

The Ju-88 was quite versatile and could have been optimized for speed ... but wasn't.

If it had been, what missions that it fulfilled in the real war might not have been fulfilled with the modified aircraft, and what mission or missions do you envision for the faster Ju-88 that it didn't do in real life?


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 28, 2012)

The Ju88 would need a fair bit more power it was about 10 to 20% bigger all round with about 130 sq foot more wing area. I dont know how much more power it would need but what engines were available for it to match the Mossies speed.


----------



## Kryten (Oct 28, 2012)

Ju88 was a lot heavier?


----------



## Tante Ju (Oct 28, 2012)

Mosquito was the RAF's Ju 88 and not vica versa.... there was not much difference, in 1940 the Ju 88 was almost as fast as the mainstay RAF fighter Hurricane.. Mosquito itself was same case in 1943, _almost_ as fast - _but not as fast_ - as Fw 190A/Me 109G.


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 28, 2012)

GregP said:


> The Ju-88 was quite versatile and could have been optimized for speed ... but wasn't.
> 
> If it had been, what missions that it fulfilled in the real war might not have been fulfilled with the modified aircraft, and what mission or missions do you envision for the faster Ju-88 that it didn't do in real life?


There are no additional missions that this version would be asked to do beyond what was asked of it historically.
Instead it would do those missions better by being more survivable. Of course it would not have been asked to dive bomb and in daylight it couldn't carry drag inducing external ordnance.



fastmongrel said:


> The Ju88 would need a fair bit more power it was about 10 to 20% bigger all round with about 130 sq foot more wing area. I dont know how much more power it would need but what engines were available for it to match the Mossies speed.


In 1942 the Mossie had about 1400HP per engine, so the Luftwaffe could have given it either the DB603 or 605, both of which were in the 1700HP range. Otherwise its the roughly similar Jumo 211, which by 1942 had about 1400HP.

In 1939-40 there was the Jumo 211 and Db601 with 1200HP and in 1941 both had boosted to the 1350HP range.



Tante Ju said:


> Mosquito was the RAF's Ju 88 and not vica versa.... there was not much difference, in 1940 the Ju 88 was almost as fast as the mainstay RAF fighter Hurricane.. Mosquito itself was same case in 1943, _almost_ as fast - _but not as fast_ - as Fw 190A/Me 109G.



Semantically yes, the Ju88 was first, so the Mosquito would technically be the British speed bomber, but to be fair the Mossie started its design before the Ju88 had entered service and was still in dive bombing modification phase. 
What I am referring to is a Ju88 that was optimized for speed and therefore survivability like the Mosquito, which then would mean it could be faster than the Hurricane.



Kryten said:


> Ju88 was a lot heavier?


Yep, 4 metric tons heavier when loaded.


----------



## Tante Ju (Oct 28, 2012)

IMHO the 88 can be easily modified to this concept, the airfame is actually very very small and narrow. The Ju 88S type was in fact designed around this concept (nearly unarmed, save for a single MG 131) high speed bomber doing about 400 mph IIRC. OTOH I do not believe in pure high speed bombers - they do get obsolate rather fast.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2012)

wiking85 said:


> In 1942 the Mossie had about 1400HP per engine, so the Luftwaffe could have given it either the DB603 or 605, both of which were in the 1700HP range. Otherwise its the roughly similar Jumo 211, which by 1942 had about 1400HP.
> 
> In 1939-40 there was the Jumo 211 and Db601 with 1200HP and in 1941 both had boosted to the 1350HP range.



The Ju 88 already used the most powerful Jumo 211's available at the time. The DB 603 or 605 in the 1700hp range do not show up until 1943 and 1944 respectively. The 1300-1400hp Jumo 211 and DB 601s are new versions of the engines and not old ones with the boost limit changed. This does tend to limit engine availability as ALL new aircraft are competing for the new engines, as in if you want DB601Es in your Ju 88 how many 109s or other aircraft do not get them? 

The British were able to keep some aircraft/engines in service (for combat duties) for at least a few months if not longer by increasing the boost limit without requiring a new mark of engine for improved performance.


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 28, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> The Ju 88 already used the most powerful Jumo 211's available at the time. The DB 603 or 605 in the 1700hp range do not show up until 1943 and 1944 respectively. The 1300-1400hp Jumo 211 and DB 601s are new versions of the engines and not old ones with the boost limit changed. This does tend to limit engine availability as ALL new aircraft are competing for the new engines, as in if you want DB601Es in your Ju 88 how many 109s or other aircraft do not get them?
> 
> The British were able to keep some aircraft/engines in service (for combat duties) for at least a few months if not longer by increasing the boost limit without requiring a new mark of engine for improved performance.



Increasing boost limit is an option to consider.
As to the rest: the DB603 appeared in production in May 1942 historically, with the DB605 not long after that, but you're right it was a lower HP version.
The Jumo 211 and DB601 would used used with a lighter, more aerodynamic version of the Ju88, so it would be faster for the same HP. Now for the DB601s and to a degree the DB603, the low number available had to do with priorities. Jumo got extra funding to expand their factories pre-war, but Daimler-Benz did not for some reason, probably politics, so had fewer available when the war broke out. From what I can tell the DBs had lower fuel consumption than the Jumos and more development potential plus earlier, higher HP, so would have been better to expand production of pre-war than the Jumos. 

Also the DB603 from sources that Dave Bender has posted had its funding cancelled in 1937-1940 only to have it restored in 1940, which resulted in it being delayed for production until 1942. Had it been funded by the military (limited private development continued) continuously through 1937-40 its conceivable that it could have entered mass production in 1941 and been available in numbers from then on, especially if Daimler production is favored over Jumo.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 28, 2012)

A German Mosquito doesn't need to be as fast as a British Mosquito. It will be facing less capable opposition until mid 1943 except for maybe in the Meds. I'd say a fast bomber of ~600-620 km/h top speed would be fast enough (loaded) to make interception extremely difficult for its opposition in the east and North Africa.


----------



## Tante Ju (Oct 28, 2012)

Its called Me 410 then..


----------



## Juha (Oct 28, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> Mosquito was the RAF's Ju 88 and not vica versa.... there was not much difference, in 1940 the Ju 88 was almost as fast as the mainstay RAF fighter Hurricane.. Mosquito itself was same case in 1943, _almost_ as fast - _but not as fast_ - as Fw 190A/Me 109G.



I disagree with that, the idea behind Mossie was a bit different and Ju 88As suffered as bad if not worse as Do 17Zs and He 111Hs and Ps during the BoB and I don't recall any fundamental difference in their use but near the end of the BoB. And Mossie bombers began operating in mid-42.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Oct 28, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> IMHO the 88 can be easily modified to this concept, the airfame is actually very very small and narrow. The Ju 88S type was in fact designed around this concept (nearly unarmed, save for a single MG 131) high speed bomber doing about 400 mph IIRC. OTOH I do not believe in pure high speed bombers - they do get obsolate rather fast.



Yes, but only in late 43 IIRC and with very limited production run but I agree that it could have been done earlier after all at least part of Ju 88S production utilized modified Ju 88A airframes.

Juha


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 28, 2012)

riacrato said:


> A German Mosquito doesn't need to be as fast as a British Mosquito. It will be facing less capable opposition until mid 1943 except for maybe in the Meds. I'd say a fast bomber of ~600-620 km/h top speed would be fast enough (loaded) to make interception extremely difficult for its opposition in the east and North Africa.



620km/h is about about 390mph. I doubt the Ju88 without wooden construction could be as fast as the Mosquito, but with its smaller internal bomb bay it could get close.

So the Ju88S without the rear machine gun and third crew member in 1939 and lack of modifications for dive bombing that upped the Ju88's weight would satisfy both of us.



Tante Ju said:


> Its called Me 410 then..


Yeah, pretty similar in performance, but in 1939 instead of late 1943.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 28, 2012)

In terms of the variety of roles each type carried out, the Ju 88 and Mossie have this in common, but conceptually they are totally different. The Mosquito was conceived as a high speed unarmed bomber built from strategic materials. The Ju 88 was not either of these things.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2012)

Increasing the boost is _NOT_ an option for the Germans, at least not much of one. Their fuel will not allow it. 

Mr Bender tends to ignore the fact that what the DB engineers learned while developing the 601/605 series was applied to the 603. a 1941 production version of the 603 would have been of rather lower power than the later version. That or you double the (or more) the R&D budget. Getting an engine with a 180mm stroke to run faster (more rpm) than an engine with a 160mm stroke is not easy. Cooling a 162mm dia. piston and cylinder is harder than cooling a 150mm one. How much trouble did the DB engineers have with burned pistons on the 605 at 1.42 ATA pressure? A 1940-41 version could very well be running at 2400rpm instead of 2700rpm and at 1.3 ATA instead of 1.42. While this may mean a 1400-1500hp engine instead of a 1750hp engine it would also be a a small decrease in weight. There would be a performance increase over historical engines but not the increase the later engines would bring.


----------



## stona (Oct 28, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> The Mosquito was conceived as a high speed unarmed bomber built from strategic materials.



NON-strategic,but I know that's what you meant 

The Germans never did match the Mosquito did they. I saw a "helmet cam" video of the one you've got down there flying over Auckland harbour recently. What a sight and sound.

Steve


----------



## spicmart (Oct 28, 2012)

Did the Mossie sport a laminar flow wing?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2012)

spicmart said:


> Did the Mossie sport a laminar flow wing?



No but it's wooden construction allowed for a smoother surface finish than metal planes had. Look down the side of many metal aircraft and the sides dish in a bit between the frames and flush rivets often aren't  

An old, well worn Mosquito might be a different story but a new one might have a very smooth (or fair) surface.


----------



## davebender (Oct 28, 2012)

Dive bombing (70 degree angle) is what made Ju-88 weapons delivery almost as accurate as the Ju-87. Take away dive bombing and you might as well cancel the Ju-88 and produce more He-111s.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 28, 2012)

stona said:


> NON-strategic,but I know that's what you meant
> 
> The Germans never did match the Mosquito did they. I saw a "helmet cam" video of the one you've got down there flying over Auckland harbour recently. What a sight and sound.
> 
> Steve


 
Ar 234


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 28, 2012)

Considering the HE111 cost more to make, more manhours, more raw materials, had less range, less versatility, was slower, and was heavier for the same bomb load (externally the Ju88 actually carried more at higher speeds too), there is no way that the He111 was in any way a preferable choice to the Ju88.
And the diving kept causing damage to the airframe, so it was deleted from the Ju88 by 1941 as part of its capabilities and stopped diving attacks during the BoB. So from mid-1940 on it was a level bomber anyway and wasn't that effective as a dive bomber even when it tried, so why no just skip that step, keep the Ju88 lighter and not delays its introduction 6 months, which kept the Do17 in production and service far longer than intended or it should have been. The the weight increase from the dive requirement also caused major production problems, because it necessitated more advanced landing gear that screwed up production until 1940, pretty much meaning that nearly 5 months of production was lost because of that addition to the design. 

So eliminate the dive requirement and about 1 years worth of production is added to the Ju88 by early 1940 over historical production.


----------



## DonL (Oct 28, 2012)

riacrato said:


> Ar 234



FW 187.

I knew many in this forum will say DonL is crazy or a crackpot, but I believe very hard that with the FW 187 in service, the FW 187 had smashed some myths about the untouchable Moussie in terms of speed and interception.
With a FW 187 in service the Mossie didn't became this mythical, that's my opinion.


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 28, 2012)

DonL said:


> FW 187.
> 
> I knew many in this forum will say DonL is crazy or a crackpot, but I believe very hard that with the FW 187 in service, the FW 187 had smashed some myths about the untouchable Moussie in terms of speed and interception.
> With a FW 187 in service the Mossie didn't became this mythical, that's my opinion.



Absolutely without question it would have. Especially when the higher powered DB605s came online, though the BMW801 or DB603 might have been plenty.


----------



## davebender (Oct 28, 2012)

Where are you getting that price information?

*Price data for 1941 for some German aircraft types, via Olaf Groehlers GdLK, 1910-1980:*
Without engine / with engine, in Reichsmarks (RM)
Bf 109E : 58 000 / 85 970
Bf 110C : 155 800 / 210 140
He 111H : 203 900 / 265 650
Ju 88A : 245 200 / 306 950
Ju 87B : 100 300 / 131 175
Ju 52 : 125 800 / 163 000
Do 17 : 185 500 / 235 00

Might as well include the Fw-187 too. Focke-Wulf stated a production cost of RM 140,000.


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 28, 2012)

davebender said:


> Where are you getting that price information?
> 
> *Price data for 1941 for some German aircraft types, via Olaf Groehlers GdLK, 1910-1980:*
> Without engine / with engine, in Reichsmarks (RM)
> ...


By cost I meant materials and manhours. The cost went down as the company paid off the cost of the special tools for it and labor costs went down with the introduction of slave labor.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 28, 2012)

The 88A-4 using bomb bay as tank can load ~2,600 kg of fuel with this can load 1,500 kg of bombs under the wings (6x250).
The 111H-16 using drop tanks can load ~2,555 kg of fuel with this can load 1,500 kg of bombs in the bomb bay (6x250) probably can also load 1,600 kg of bombs (32x50)

p.s. for clear the 32x50 load is alternative to 6x250 load


----------



## davebender (Oct 28, 2012)

Slave labor in 1941 Germany? 

Perhaps you were thinking of the Soviet Union where slave labor was routinely employed from 1920 onward (per Solzhenitsyn).


----------



## Gixxerman (Oct 28, 2012)

wiking85 said:


> And the diving kept causing damage to the airframe, so it was deleted from the Ju88 by 1941 as part of its capabilities and stopped diving attacks during the BoB.
> 
> So from mid-1940 on it was a level bomber anyway and wasn't that effective as a dive bomber even when it tried.



Really?
I thought there was extensive use of the Ju 88 as a dive bomber during the attacks on Russia in '41 '42.
I could have sworn I've seen film of it, no?


----------



## Gixxerman (Oct 28, 2012)

davebender said:


> Slave labor in 1941 Germany?
> 
> Perhaps you were thinking of the Soviet Union where slave labor was routinely employed from 1920 onward (per Solzhenitsyn).



Hmmm, why is a comment about nazi activities always 'answered' by a comment about what went on in Stalin's Russia, talk about besides the point.

Last I read the Todt organisation could coerce certain people to work (pre-war).
Perhaps someone has numbers?
Wiki mentions between '38 '40 some 1.75 million German people 'conscripted' in this way.


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 28, 2012)

davebender said:


> Slave labor in 1941 Germany?
> 
> Perhaps you were thinking of the Soviet Union where slave labor was routinely employed from 1920 onward (per Solzhenitsyn).


Polish POWs were working in the German aircraft industry from 1939-40 on. It only got worse as French, Dutch, Belgian, and later Soviet POWS showed up and culminated in Jewish and concentration camp labor predominating in 1944.



Gixxerman said:


> Really?
> I thought there was extensive use of the Ju 88 as a dive bomber during the attacks on Russia in '41 '42.
> I could have sworn I've seen film of it, no?


They weren't AFAIK. The Ju88 bombed horizontally only at that point.


----------



## stona (Oct 29, 2012)

riacrato said:


> Ar 234



I'm not counting jets particularly ones that arrived too few and too late to make the slightest difference.

The Fw 187 may well have caught the Mosquito but it was hardly a comparable aircraft.

Steve


----------



## Denniss (Oct 29, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> The 88A-4 using bomb bay as tank can load ~2,600 kg of fuel with this can load 1,500 kg of bombs under the wings (6x250).
> The 111H-16 using drop tanks can load ~2,555 kg of fuel with this can load 1,500 kg of bombs in the bomb bay (6x250) probably can also load 1,600 kg of bombs (32x50)


The Ju 88 A-4 in Rüstzustand C (both bomb bays used for fuel) carried 2620 kg of fuel and was permitted to carry 6x 250 kg bombs. With 100 kg fuel and several external bomb carriers removed it was permitted to carry a single 1800 kg bomb. Both variations weighted ~13750 kg
The He 111 H-16 with full internal tanks (2555 kg) was permitted to carry 3x 250 kg + 20x 50 kg bombs for 1750 kg, with slightly reduced internal fuel (2425 kg) it was permitted to carry 2t. With internal bombbayb used for fuel (3175kg) it could carry 1t. Each variation weighted about 14000 kg.

Both aircraft could carry more/heavier bombs but had to reduce fuel accordingly.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 29, 2012)

Ty Dennis, i writed He 111 with drop tank because i've not understand right the words "tragflachenmitteltein" and "entnahmebehalter" what is exact traslation?


----------



## davebender (Oct 29, 2012)

That's rather obvious. Fw-187 was a day fighter. Mosquito was a light bomber. 

Me-210C / Me-410A light bomber was Germany's equivalent to the Mosquito. Entered service about the same time too.


----------



## stona (Oct 29, 2012)

davebender said:


> That's rather obvious. Fw-187 was a day fighter. Mosquito was a light bomber.



So it didn't match the Mosquito as I originally wrote.

Steve


----------



## riacrato (Oct 29, 2012)

stona said:


> I'm not counting jets particularly ones that arrived too few and too late to make the slightest difference.
> 
> The Fw 187 may well have caught the Mosquito but it was hardly a comparable aircraft.
> 
> Steve


Well I am counting them so 

Me 410s were also pretty successful in the interdiction role even if they were a bit slower than a Mosquito and could carry only a lighter load.


----------



## davebender (Oct 29, 2012)

That worked ok during 1943 when P-47s lacked range to reach central Germany and P-51s had yet to appear.


----------



## stona (Oct 29, 2012)

riacrato said:


> Well I am counting them so



Well at least you've picked a bomber which is a legitimate comparison with the Mosquito. It's maximum load was significantly lower.

The fact that you have gone for a jet that entered limited service,whilst others have chosen a day fighter that never even entered production (Fw 187) speaks volumes for the de Havilland Mosquito 

The Me 210/410 is not a good comparison either. The Mosquito was a bomber from its conception whereas noone seems to have been sure what role the Me 210/410 was going to carry out. It certainly wasn't much of a bomber.

The real effort to build an aircraft to match at least some aspects of the Mosquito's performance would be the Ta 154 and the less said about that the better 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Denniss (Oct 29, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> Ty Dennis, i writed He 111 with drop tank because i've not understand right the words "tragflachenmitteltein" and "entnahmebehalter" what is exact traslation?


Entnahmebehälter = engine feed tank = the tank the engine gets it's fuel from. Tragflächenmittelteil = Wing mid section.
AFAIR the He 111 had aux tanks in the outer wing section and the main (feed) tanks between engine and the mid win section.


----------



## davebender (Oct 29, 2012)

> noone seems to have been sure what role the Me 210/410 was going to carry out


Me-210 had a bomb bay equal in size to 1942 versions of the Mosquito. Me-210 carried slightly more fuel then the Mosquito and it was well protected against ground fire. Me-210 had dive brakes and a proper bomb sight. How could there be any doubt as to the Me-210s design role?


----------



## wuzak (Oct 29, 2012)

davebender said:


> Me-210 had a bomb bay equal in size to 1942 versions of the Mosquito. Me-210 carried slightly more fuel then the Mosquito and it was well protected against ground fire. Me-210 had dive brakes and a proper bomb sight. How could there be any doubt as to the Me-210s design role?



You mean the Mosquito didn't have a "proper bomb sight"?

The Me 210 may have had more fuel, but did that give greater range?

The Me 210's bomb bay may have taken the same load as teh Mosquito's in 1942, but it sure wasn't the same size.


----------



## stona (Oct 30, 2012)

davebender said:


> How could there be any doubt as to the Me-210s design role?



Because I've read the minutes of meetings at the RLM in which it is clear that the intended role of the Me 210/410 changed on an almost monthly basis. Sometimes on nothing more than a whim of the Fuhrer who one day wanted to shoot down RAF bombers and the next wanted to bomb England. The entire "Zerstorer" role came and went too.

The initial pre-war acquisition plan,to be realised by 1942,was for seven or eight heavy fighter wings (of a total of sixteen) to be equipped with the Me 210. No bombers at all.
There were also plans for eight dive bomber wings,initially stocked with Ju 87s which would be replaced with Me 210s as they became available.

The RLM expected the Me 210 to be a direct descendant of the Bf 110. This is why an order for 2000 aircraft was placed before a prototype had even been built. It is often forgotten that the contract for the Me 210 was issued before the war in late 1938. It was a decision that it would come to regret.
The first prototype flew on 2nd September 1939,just in time it was hoped for WW2.

Steve


----------



## stona (Oct 30, 2012)

davebender said:


> Me-210 had a bomb bay equal in size to 1942 versions of the Mosquito.



Well the Me 410's bomb bay was too small for a standard German SC 1000 bomb!
In mid 1943 the Luftwaffe was looking into fitting such a bomb with reduced fins ( specifically for the Me 410)
They also had problems fitting the Lotfe bomb sight. The fitting required modifying the seat,removing the auto pilot and repositioning the rudder pedals.
This does not sound like Germany's Mosquito to me.

Steve


----------



## davebender (Oct 30, 2012)

1,000 kg is a very large bomb. 1942 versions of the Mosquito, B-25, Ju-88 and probably a dozen other medium / light bombers couldn't fit such a weapon in the bomb bay either.


----------



## stona (Oct 30, 2012)

The 1942 version could carry four 500 lb bombs but it didn't need a huge modification to enable a 4000lb cookie to be carried. A 4000lb cookie is a large device.
Put 4000lbs of ordnance on an Me 210 and it won't get off the ground. It could lift just over a quarter of that.
The comparison between the two is pointless.
The Mosquito was a much better and more versatile aircraft.
Steve


----------



## wuzak (Oct 30, 2012)

davebender said:


> 1,000 kg is a very large bomb. 1942 versions of the Mosquito, B-25, Ju-88 and probably a dozen other medium / light bombers couldn't fit such a weapon in the bomb bay either.



The Mosquito's bomb bay didn't grow in length or width, the only thing that changed was the bulged bomb bay doors, to fit the 4000lb HC and MC bombs.

The only British general purpose bomb of similar size was the 1900lb GP bomb, which could fit comfortably inside the Mosquito's bomb bay for length and width - the only question is depth to the bomb bay doors - the 1900 GP bomb was only 1" large in diameter than the 1000lb MC bomb, 2 of which the Mosquito could carry.

The only thing the Mosquito needed modified to carry an SC 1000 would be the bomb bay doors - the bulged version would comfortably fit the SC 1000.


----------



## stona (Oct 30, 2012)

Whilst we're on 1942,it was in March 1942 that Jeschonnek gave his opinion of the Me 210.

"This aircraft is a danger to its crews."

You won't find any comments like that about the Mosquito.

As for bomb bays,an SC 500 just fitted in the Me 410 bomb bay. There was a 10cm gap between bomb and bomb bay doors.

Steve


----------



## davebender (Oct 30, 2012)

What's wrong with that?

Bridges and bunkers are typical targets for light bombers. Bombs of 250 to 500 kg are the right size weapons.


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 30, 2012)

wiking85 said:


> Polish POWs were working in the German aircraft industry from 1939-40 on. It only got worse as French, Dutch, Belgian, and later Soviet POWS showed up and culminated in Jewish and concentration camp labor predominating in 1944.
> 
> 
> They weren't AFAIK. The Ju88 bombed horizontally only at that point.



The Ju 88 had dive Brakes and these were in use during both the BoB and the Battle of France for 45 degree and even 60 degree attacks. The later addition of the BZA computer with the Stuvi 5B dive bombing sight allowed accurate 22 degree slide bombing attacks and the removal of the dive brakes.

British POW were never used in munitions production that i know of as that was against the Geneva and Hague conventions which the Germans strictly complied with. Apart from officers who were exempt British POW were used in forestry and agriculture. The conventions recognised that a POW must atleast pay for his upkeep or else combatants might see them as a burden and be disinclined to invest in their wellbeing.

Junkers had almost zero use of impressed labour. The first use of forced labour in aviation was at Heinkel Rostok which used labour from a nearby concentration camp as a result of production problems caused by cancellation of Me 210 program which was to replace He 111 production and difficulties in retooling for Ju 88 production which had to replace Me 210 production. The disruption meant manufacture was labour intensive rather than based on efficient use of tooling in the form of presses and jigs. At the time a concentration camp was a small affair, about 5000 in all of Germany, where politically difficult people were sent for a few months or years and were expected to work under strict discipline. The system grew from there.

The Soviets had refused to signe the Geneva conventions or to renew The earlier Hague conventions which the Tsar had signed. As a result their POW could be used in munitions production in fact they often manned FLAK crews. A Soviet POW was punished severely for allowing themselves to be captured. Execution or years in a concentration camp was normal.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 30, 2012)

> The first use of forced labour in aviation was at Heinkel Rostok which used labour from a nearby concentration camp



Heinkel's plant near Oranienburg used forced labour from Sachsenhausen, which is on the outskirts of Oranienburg. Sachsenhausen was the Nazi party's 'model' camp, which they showed to the world how nice they were to their political prisoners during the 1936 Berlin Olympics. You can still visit the Sachsenhousen site, which is a state memorial... thread drift...

Just as an aside, it is worth noting that at no time, apart from the Ar 234 - which, although it was very quick, it was not nor could it have been as versatile in its applications as the Mosquito was - did the Luftwaffe consider building an aircraft to the high speed unarmed bomber concept. This was something that the British had considered before Geoffrey de Havilland wrote his letter to Wilfred Freeman in September 1939 outlining the Mossie concept. 

Two years earlier George Volkert of Handley Page wrote a paper extolling the virtues of such a thing and came up with a concept for such an aeroplane, using P13/36 - the specification that produced the Avro Manchester and Volkert's own HP.56 that was never built, but was modified to became the HP.57 Halifax - as a benchmark, but without defensive armament of powered turrets in the nose and tail. Volkert's high speed twin engined bomber was very streamlined and had nose glasing similar to the He 111. This paper put a cat among the pigeons in the Air Ministry and set tongues wagging and gained much favourable comment, even from Bomber Command C-in-C Edgar Ludlow Hewitt, although several heads were opposed to the idea of a bomber with no guns. Even the Mosquito was to be initially built in two versions, an unarmed concept aircraft and a gun turret equipped fast bomber before it was going to be approved. Thanks largely to Freeman and the further decision to build the type as a night fighter and a photo reconnaissance aircraft, the high speed unarmed prototype was the only one completed.

The problem was that when first proposed by GDH, the DH.98 was not emphasised as being a multi role type, just a high speed unarmed bomber; by contrast Blackburn Aircraft had successfully gained a production contract for its unarmed B.28 bomber reconnaissance project, which was to have performance similar to the Mossie, though this is doubtful as it was a bit of a pig in appearance - only a mock up was built.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 30, 2012)

Volkert's unarmed P.13/36 was to be powered by two Vultures, have a maximum speed of 380mph and maximum bomb load of 8000lb. Could have been quite useful!


----------



## stona (Oct 31, 2012)

davebender said:


> What's wrong with that?
> 
> Bridges and bunkers are typical targets for light bombers. Bombs of 250 to 500 kg are the right size weapons.



There's nothing wrong with that but its not a valid comparison with the sort of load carried by the Mosquito.

Steve


----------



## riacrato (Oct 31, 2012)

stona said:


> The 1942 version could carry four 500 lb bombs but it didn't need a huge modification to enable a 4000lb cookie to be carried. A 4000lb cookie is a large device.
> Put 4000lbs of ordnance on an Me 210 and it won't get off the ground. It could lift just over a quarter of that.
> The comparison between the two is pointless.
> The Mosquito was a much better and more versatile aircraft.
> Steve


Me 210´s (with long cell, not sure about the old ones) could carry 2x500kg for a total of 1,000 kg (2,204 lb). Not quite the Mosquito load, but certainly enough to be very useful and destructive. It's not always about the fastest or best armed, but about what aircraft is useful in its specific role and the later 210s or 410s were certainly up to the task of a fast bomber, interdiction aircraft.


nuuumannn said:


> Just as an aside, it is worth noting that at no time, apart from the Ar 234 - which, although it was very quick, it was not nor could it have been as versatile in its applications as the Mosquito was - did the Luftwaffe consider building an aircraft to the high speed unarmed bomber concept. This was something that the British had considered before Geoffrey de Havilland wrote his letter to Wilfred Freeman in September 1939 outlining the Mossie concept.


How so? I can't think of a Mosquito-role the Ar 234 could not have been adapted for. That some of those never came to be is more a result of the war ending and the limited number produced being used for what they were best suited for: Recon or fast bomber attacks.

The original Ju 88 was to have only marginal defensive armament, relying almost entirely on speed for defense. So yes, the concept was considered. It was only the RLMs insistance that led to the Ju 88 becoming a 'medium' bomber. It is a testimony to the sound design that they managed to make it such a good aircraft besides the changing requirements.


----------



## davebender (Oct 31, 2012)

Pathfinder aircraft have a mission entirely different from normal light bombers. A Mosquito carrying a 4,000 lb cookie or target indicators @ 20,000+ feet would be worthless for bombing bridges and bunkers. 

The Luftwaffe employed pathfinder aircraft too as early as 1940. I believe they used Ju-88s and He-111s with specially trained aircrew.


----------



## davebender (Oct 31, 2012)

> original Ju 88 was to have only marginal defensive armament, relying almost entirely on speed for defense


Might have worked if RLM hadn't pulled the plug on the DB603 engine program during 1937. A Ju-88A powered by DB603 engines would be tough to catch with fighter aircraft in service during 1941.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 31, 2012)

> How so? I can't think of a Mosquito-role the Ar 234 could not have been adapted for.



High speed transport - no room for passengers in the Ar 234, sorry, anti-shipping strike and torpedo bomber - not adviseable particularly releasing a torpedo at the speeds a jet travels at, aircraft carrier based naval versions - especially difficult since Germany had no carriers in service. There's a few so far. The Ar 234 didn't have an internal bomb bay; the Mossie could carry a heavier load than the German jet.



> only marginal defensive armament


 ...not none at all, however. Apart from the Ar 234, the Germans did not dispense with defensive armament altogether in any of their bombers. The Mossie was specifically designed as a high speed _unarmed_ bomber built with non strategic materials; as posted earlier, the Ju 88 was not.


----------



## stona (Oct 31, 2012)

davebender said:


> Pathfinder aircraft have a mission entirely different from normal light bombers. A Mosquito carrying a 4,000 lb cookie or target indicators @ 20,000+ feet would be worthless for bombing bridges and bunkers.



Or prison walls?

Steve


----------



## davebender (Oct 31, 2012)

1939 Germany was the world's largest aluminum producer. It makes sense for WWII Germany to build aircraft of aluminum.

Britain and the Soviet Union did not produce much aluminum at the start of WWII. That's why they used other materials such as wood and fabric. 

If Germany had been short of aluminum the Ju-88 probably would have been built out of fabric covered steel tube in a manner similiar to the Hurricane fighter aircraft or wood in a manner similiar to the Mosquito.


----------



## davebender (Oct 31, 2012)

I doubt the RAF dropped target indicators and/or a 4,000 lb cookie when attacking a police station.


----------



## stona (Oct 31, 2012)

davebender said:


> I doubt the RAF dropped target indicators and/or a 4,000 lb cookie when attacking a police station.



Nope,each aircraft dropped four 500lb bombs,at least on "Jericho".

Pathfinding was just one of many roles for the Mosquito given by Bomber Command after its first operation (to take photographs of the damage caused to Cologne) on 31 May 1942. 
Mosquitos were also capable of marking from low level. Most Pathfinders were not Mosquitos in any case. "Cookies" and target indicators were often dropped on diversionary "spoof" raids.

One of the most striking facts noticed leafing through the Bomber Command War Diaries is just how few Mosquitos flew with Bomber Command on a typical night. It is not often a double figure number and rarely more than thirty.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Oct 31, 2012)

Me-210C / Me-410A on a similiar mission probably would have dropped four 250 kg bombs. Pretty much the same thing.

Not all nations solve military problems the same way. Late war Britain used the Mosquito for pathfinder missions because they had plenty available. Germany built only 1,189 Me-410s (including conversions from Me-210) and only 195 of them were assigned to light bomber units. Not enough available for pathfinder and night fighter units so Ju-88s got those missions.


----------



## stona (Oct 31, 2012)

Ignore


----------



## Milosh (Oct 31, 2012)

Pathfinder missions for Mossies started in June 1943 with 105 Sqd and Apr 1943 with 139 Sqd. Hhardly late war.

pathfinder squadrons (Wiki)
Between 1942 and 1945

No. 7 Squadron RAF - Stirling, then Lancaster
No. 35 Squadron RAF - Halifax, then Lancaster
No. 83 Squadron RAF - Lancaster
No. 97 Squadron RAF - Lancaster
No. 105 Squadron RAF - Mosquito
No. 109 Squadron RAF - Wellington, then Mosquito - Oboe
No. 128 Squadron RAF - Mosquito formed 1944
No. 139 Squadron RAF - Mosquito
No. 142 Squadron RAF - Mosquito formed 1944
No. 156 Squadron RAF - Wellington, then Lancaster
No. 162 Squadron RAF - Mosquito formed 1944
No. 163 Squadron RAF - Mosquito formed 1945
No. 405 Squadron RCAF - Halifax, then Lancaster
No. 571 Squadron RAF - Mosquito formed 1943
No. 582 Squadron RAF - Lancaster formed 1944
No. 608 Squadron RAF - Mosquito formed 1944
No. 627 Squadron RAF - Mosquito formed 1943
No. 635 Squadron RAF - Lancaster formed 1944
No. 692 Squadron RAF - Mosquito formed 1944


----------



## Denniss (Oct 31, 2012)

davebender said:


> Germany built only 1,189 Me-410s (including conversions from Me-210)


Not a single Me 210 was converted to Me 410, they used stored and updated Me 210 airframes for initial Me 410 production.


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 31, 2012)

davebender said:


> 1939 Germany was the world's largest aluminum producer. It makes sense for WWII Germany to build aircraft of aluminum.
> 
> Britain and the Soviet Union did not produce much aluminum at the start of WWII. That's why they used other materials such as wood and fabric.
> 
> If Germany had been short of aluminum the Ju-88 probably would have been built out of fabric covered steel tube in a manner similiar to the Hurricane fighter aircraft or wood in a manner similiar to the Mosquito.



Nevertheless Goering had the following to say about this very concept:
de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Göring's comments
> The Mosquito famously annoyed the Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, when, on 20 January 1943, the 10th anniversary of the Nazis' seizure of power, a Mosquito attack knocked out the main Berlin broadcasting station, putting his speech off air. Göring complained about the high speed of the aircraft and its wooden structure, built by a nation he considered to have large metal reserves, while Germany had shortages of such materials and could not produce such a design.[90]
> 
> In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked.
> ...


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 31, 2012)

> That's why they used other materials such as wood and fabric.



With regards to the British that's absolute rubbish. The Mosquito was conceived for use of wood because de Havilland was well practised in building aircraft structures out of wood, not because there was a shortage of aluminium. The use of wood and fabric in British aircraft was because it was still useful as a material for constructing aircraft with. If Britain had a shortage of ali before the war, how do you explain Short Sunderlands, Fairey Battles, AW Whitleys, HP Hampdens, Spittys, Hurricanes (and before you say anything about Hurris built out of wood, just the very early Mk.Is had wooden wings, Hurricane fuselage structure was entirely of welded steel tube and ali, just covered with fabric - and this was in keeping with Hawker practise in previous types - not because there was a shortage of ali!) Wellingtons, Blenheims etc all appearing in numbers and under construction in numbers before the war? There was no shortage of aluminium in Britain at that time.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 1, 2012)

Here's a few close up pics of the Mossie recently flown in NZ. What is readily apparent is how smooth the exterior finish is.






















KA114, an FB.26 wears the markings of an FB.6 of 487 (New Zealand) Sqn that took part in Jericho






The business end of the FB.6 was identical to this.






The bomb bay was sectioned with the front half being occupied by the four 20 mm cannon and armament, with the rear for carrying bombs.






One for the _Ich liebe Deutchland/Deutchland uber Alles_ crowd.






Lastly, an example of the ultimate Mossie bomber variant, the B.35 showing bulged bomb bay doors and a reproduction 4,000 lb cookie bomb on a trolley next to it. That aint gonna fit in the Me 410, nor is an Ar 234 gonna get off the ground with one of those under its belly.


----------



## CobberKane (Nov 1, 2012)

Regarding a shortage of aluminium in the UK during the war, it must have existed in at least some form at times because my Grandmother told me of everyone giving up their alunimium cookwear. Regarding the speed of the Mosquito compared to German fighters, I've read that its advantage was not so much in maximum speed, where it was comptetitve rather than dominant, but maximum sustained speed. From the point of view of the intercepting pilot, if they weren't in exactly the right place at the right time they would run out of boost or fuel before they could close on the mossie and would have to give up the chase.


----------



## stona (Nov 1, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Regarding a shortage of aluminium in the UK during the war, it must have existed in at least some form at times because my Grandmother told me of everyone giving up their alunimium cookwear.



Sometimes these sort of Home Front excercise were done as much for morale as from real necessity.I don't know if that was the case with aluminium or not. That's not to say the aluminium wasn't used.






Health and Safety Officers hadn't been invented when that photograph was taken  A vest and a manly pose were all that was required whilst melting aluminium.

It certainly happened,my mother told me that at the time she was quite sure her mum's pots and pans would end up as part of a Spitfire (what else!).

She also remembered lead being collected,there must have been some leaky roofs,but I've not found any confirmation of that.

Here's some aluminium trivia:
When Sir Charles Portal, Arthur Harris’s predecessor as commander of Bomber Command, retired from the Royal Air Force he became Chair of British Aluminium. 
The roof of the new Memorial for Bomber Command in Green Park is made from aluminium recovered from a Halifax bomber that was shot down over Belgium.

The NZ Mosquito looks fantastic,what a credit to the restorers.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 1, 2012)

Guess what all those pots and pans were turned into. Military issue pots and pans you cant make aircraft grade aluminium out of the sort of junk that goes to make a saucepan. There never was a major shortage of aluminium during the war though things were tight there were significant stockpiles of aluminium ingots and Bauxite that were never needed. 

What was short during the war was high grade steel alloys particulary the Nitrided sort used to make crankshafts, gears, conrods and camshafts.


----------



## Gixxerman (Nov 1, 2012)

In my view the Ju 88 is obviously a very versatile plane (always liked the Ju 188/388 variants too, especially the fast reconn S versions).

Those Mossies look beautiful.

.....and her ability to carry the 4,000lb cookie is quite amazing given the speed height she could do it at (including high speed low level attacks on Berlin no less).

I don't think the Luftwaffe had anything that could genuinely match this ability.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 1, 2012)

I would think that getting a good, clean aerodynamic surface would be easier for a wooden aircraft than for an aluminum one. Just get a few proud furniture artisans with sandpaper and furniture polish and watch the artwork appear, as in the pix above. 

No matter what your favoritism is, you gotta love the design of the Mosquito. In my opinion, it is more of an aerodynamic masterpiece than the Spitfire.


----------



## stona (Nov 1, 2012)

fastmongrel said:


> Guess what all those pots and pans were turned into. Military issue pots and pans you cant make aircraft grade aluminium out of the sort of junk that goes to make a saucepan.



That's not quite true.
From Jules Backman and Leo Fishman, ‘British wartime control of aluminum’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 56 (1) (1941)

"Although these contributions were to be voluntary, the timing of the appeal, its tone, and the manner in which it was put forward left the impression that the country’s need for scrap aluminum was urgent. As a result, the response from the housewives was immediate and their contributions were reported to be of quite considerable proportions. Almost as prompt were the criticisms and complaints raised from trade and parliamentary quarters, as well as by some groups of skeptical housewives. Thus many scrap metal merchants became indignant when the appeal was made, calling attention to the tons of scrap in their yards for which they were unable to find a market. To this objection it was pointed out in Parliament that not all aluminum scrap was suitable for use in aircraft production. This limitation was especially true for the scrap held by these dealers, _whereas that obtained from household utensils was excellent for this purpose._"

This must be a reflection on the pots and pans of the day as it is true that tipping a load of different aluminium alloys into a smelter is not going to get you something like duralumin. It might be feasible to make other aluminium parts from it though.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## spicmart (Nov 1, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> No but it's wooden construction allowed for a smoother surface finish than metal planes had. Look down the side of many metal aircraft and the sides dish in a bit between the frames and flush rivets often aren't
> 
> An old, well worn Mosquito might be a different story but a new one might have a very smooth (or fair) surface.



The wing profile looks a little bit like it does have a laminar wing though. But as it ain't so what are the characteristics of the Mosquito design other than the engines which make it so fast?


----------



## davparlr (Nov 1, 2012)

spicmart said:


> The wing profile looks a bit like it does have a laminar wing though. But as it ain't so what are the characteristics of the Mosquito design other than the engines which make it so fast?



My opinion, superb design, attention to detail, and possibly finish.


----------



## spicmart (Nov 1, 2012)

Its cockpit section, especially of the fighter version, and fuselage do not look any more streamlined than those of its Luftwaffe twin engined opponents.
In fact even more draggy as its fuselage seems to have a wider cross section than the Me 110 e.g.. 
The wings, radiator and nacelles do look sleek.
But I'm no aerodynamicist.
Anyway the Mossie is one sleek and beautiful machine.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 1, 2012)

I'm with you Daveparlr, on this; although I think its clean finish definitely had something to do with it, plus its buried radiators/oil coolers in the wing roots and, need I say it, plenty of power.

It's a little unfair to post pics of a very recently completed Mossie and not show it's contemporaries, so here are the Baaaad Guys;

One of the greats of WW2 on any side and one of my favourites, the truly versatile Ju 88. The story of how this one ended up in the UK could have come from the pages of an Ian Fleming novel.






Sleek and powerful looking, the Me 410











The sublimely beautiful Ar 234, although its a lot smaller than I thought it would be.











And finally an aircraft is sometimes referred to as Russia's Mosquito, so it definitely deserves more coverage; the Tupolev Tu-2


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 2, 2012)

stona said:


> That's not quite true.
> From Jules Backman and Leo Fishman, ‘British wartime control of aluminum’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 56 (1) (1941)



I cant remember where I read or heard it but apparently none of the scrap aluminium pots and pans ever got anywhere near an aircraft. A lot of the scrap was simply recycled into more pots and pans and and the only people getting new pots and pans were the military.

My father when he left the RAF got a temporary job as a machinist making gauges and instruments for ships. He told me that one day he was machining an engine room telegraph out of brass when the the work caught fire in the lathe. Turned out the supposed brass was recycled metal and had a considerable proportion of magnesium in it, as the machining lube they used was neat paraffin oil that also caught fire and the lathe was wrecked.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 2, 2012)

nuuuman nice pictures but wasnt it the Petlyakov Pe-2 that was referred to as the Russian Mosquito.

Petlyakov Pe-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 2, 2012)

> wasnt it the Petlyakov Pe-2 that was referred to as the Russian Mosquito



Well, when you compare the two types, you'll see that out of the two, the Tu-2 probably deserves the accolade more. Described in one book I've read as the most sophisticated and advanced twin piston engined aircraft built in the Soviet Union in WW2, the Tu-2 was "aerodynamically outstanding, particular attention to low drag with stiff sandwich wing skins, flush rivetting on all external surfaces and painstaking attention to detail on original aircraft 103 [the prototype], as witness speed higher than any Soviet fighter then in service." First flying in January 1941, the prototype reached the astonishing speed of 395 mph. The Tu-2 is regularly described as one of the outstanding aircraft of WW2.

Comparing the standard production models of the two, the Tu-2S could carry a heavier load at a higher speed, across a greater distance at a higher altitude than the Pe-2, although the 
Pe-2 was faster in the climb. Seeing extensive service post war, the Tu-2, like the Pe-2 was built for a variety of roles, including bomber interceptor, specialised ground attack (sturmovik), long range bomber, radar equipped night fighter (the Tu-2/104 carried out the first radar intercept trials in Soviet Union), torpedo bomber and not to forget test bed, including ejection seat trials; one also was fitted with a single Rolls Royce Nene under its belly for testing, as well as Russian engines.

Before I learned about this aircraft, I visited an air museum (actually two) in Poland where it was pointed out to me that the Tu-2 was considered the Russian Mosquito, hence the use of the quote in my blurb above. It was a winner.


----------



## Denniss (Nov 2, 2012)

Then the Pe-2 was probably their Beaufighter.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 2, 2012)

I always thought that the Tu-2 was considered the USSRs equivalent to the Ju88. Certainly wiki calls the Pe-2 the USSRs Mossie equivalent.


----------



## Denniss (Nov 2, 2012)

Pe-8 was a heavy bomber.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 2, 2012)

Denniss said:


> Pe-8 was a heavy bomber.



Oops sorry typo there too busy watching Paul Weller on the TV will edit it.


----------



## Juha (Nov 2, 2012)

On Tu-2 onlly a small production run was built in 42 (80 planes) before the Omsk factory switched to produce Yak-9s. At the later part of 43 production started again. Its first bigger bomber operation was agaisnt Finns in June 44.

Juha


----------



## Denniss (Nov 2, 2012)

AFAIR early Tu-2 were expensive to produce, production was complex and using too many strategic materials, engines were not really reliable. Only after massive redesign and engine switch it became the superb Tu-2S.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 2, 2012)

> too busy watching Paul Weller on the TV


 Did you get in to a Jam (geddit)?


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 2, 2012)

removed


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 3, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Did you get in to a Jam (geddit)?



Yes but in a very Stylish way


----------



## stona (Nov 3, 2012)

fastmongrel said:


> A lot of the scrap was simply recycled into more pots and pans and and the only people getting new pots and pans were the military.



That's certainly so.

Steve


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 3, 2012)

> Yes but in a very Stylish way


----------

