# How well did the Junkers JU-188 perform in the war?



## Jank (Mar 21, 2006)

Thought the JU-188 was a pretty hot ship. Any thougts?


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 22, 2006)

atleast you have a 20mm dorsal rather than a tiny MG, ive heard that spitfires that were intercepting suddenly heard their engine make wierd noies than they aw that they were hit by the 20mm of a Ju-188. but there were slightly more than 1000 Ju-188s built


----------



## SpitTrop (Mar 27, 2006)

Hardly saw any of them did they?


----------



## Twitch (Mar 27, 2006)

The Ju 88 was a solid plane. Versatile was the word for that airframe. It took al sorts of modifications and configurations and performed pretty well in its roles.


----------



## Henk (Mar 27, 2006)

Twitch you maybe meant the Ju-188 not the Ju-88? The Ju-188 were a great aircraft and it performed pretty great in it roles. Based on the Ju-88 only jazzed up and modernised to keep up with the allied aircraft.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 28, 2006)

Had the 188 replaced the 88....


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 30, 2006)

Yes and no. The Ju-88 was really used towards the end of the war as a Nightfighter, but it still was used every once in awhile as a bomber.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 30, 2006)

And let's not forget the Mistel.


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 31, 2006)

Yep, nice woman


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 31, 2006)

was it really muh of a difference Intercepting a Ju-188 from an -88


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 31, 2006)

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWjunkers88.htm

http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/ju188.htm

The Ju-188 was much faster (Some versions had a top spped of 350 m.p.h) and it was much better armed m8.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 31, 2006)

Hot Space said:


> Yep, nice woman


She's a dominant bitch, but she takes care of her boys.


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 31, 2006)

Its the whip that keeps 'em in line I guess


----------



## jacko352 (Feb 29, 2008)

...sorry to wet on your bonfire Hot space but,i think you'll find that the ju88 was able to better 350 mph...i've a book called 'wings of the luftwaffe' by capt eric brown (former royal navy cheif test pilot RAE Farnborough)in which it states that the ju88G could reach 363mph at 33465ft or 389mph with MW50 boost..or without flame dampers-402mph at 29855ft...


----------



## Njaco (Feb 29, 2008)

Its an awful wet bonfire. This thread is 2 years old and I haven't seen most of those who posted on here in awhile.


----------



## jacko352 (Mar 27, 2008)

bugger...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 28, 2008)

Oh well, but you're right, with Jumo 213 engines, the nightfighter Ju 88 could top 400 mph at altitude.


----------



## Denniss (Mar 28, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Oh well, but you're right, with Jumo 213 engines, the nightfighter Ju 88 could top 400 mph at altitude.



But only without radar antennas and without engine flame dampers. The standard Jumo 213A may have not been enough for this, the high alt 213E/F was needed for this.


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Mar 22, 2010)

im going to have to say that the ju 188 was an awesome follow up from the ju 88: improved and redesigned cockpit (roomy and better visibility, increased performance (stronger engines and cleaner/more aerodynamic wings and tail), and probably most importantly defensive armament. The best armed being the ju 188A had a forward firing mg 131 13mm, a mg 151 15mm, or a Mg 151/20 20mm, an EDL 151 dorsal turret with a mg 151/20 20mm cannon, a mg 131 13mm in the rear dorsal position and a mg 131 13mm or a mg 81z twin 7.9mm in the ventral position. Not to mention its improved speed of 325mph and having the same heavy payload as the ju 88. If infact had the ju 188 come in earlier and in larger, i would argue that it would have been the best twin engine aircraft of wwii because imagine it doing all the roles the ju 88 had done (other than bomber)

Last post was 2yrs ago. im a bit late


----------



## Njaco (Mar 23, 2010)

maybe best German twin but you're not going to beat the Mossie for that award.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 23, 2010)

+1

It took a lot of time for anything to catch up with Mossie - eventually jet plane was only thing that really worked.


----------



## zoomar (Mar 23, 2010)

The Ju-188 was a signal improvement on the original Ju-88. From what I have read (Wm Green mostly) it was also very popular with the few units able to get it. The fact that Germany continued to produce Ju88A's throughout the war says as much about chronically poor decision-making by the RLM as it does about the good the qualities of the Ju-88A. Within a year of the Ju-88A entering service, Junkers proposed and built prototypes of the Ju88B, which incorporated a number of design improvements that became the Ju-188 three years later. Following its usual "don't mess with existing schedules and types until you want to build something really stupid" mentality, the RLM told Junkers to can the Ju-88B and put all effort into the much more radical (and unsuccessful) Ju-288. Had the RLM any sense, the Luftwaffe could have been phasing out the Ju88A and introducing a much more capable bomber (the Ju88B/Ju188 ) as early as 1941.


----------



## davebender (Mar 23, 2010)

> can the Ju-88B and put all effort into the much more radical (and unsuccessful) Ju-288.


The Ju-88 and Ju-288 are not comparable as the Ju-288 was so much larger with a corresponding larger range/payload. Rather like comparing a B-25 with a B-17.

B-17 Flying Fortress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For comparison purposes, B-17G Loaded weight was 24,500 kg. 

*Ju-88A4.* 2 x 1,400 hp Jumo 211J engines.
Junkers Ju 88 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
8,550 kg Loaded weight.

*Ju-288C.* 2 x DB610 engines (i.e. coupled DB605s)
WRG - Luftwaffe Resource Group - Junkers Ju 288
22,450 kg Loaded weight.

As you can see, the Ju-288 was in the heavy bomber class. The Ju-88 and slightly improved Ju-188 were light bombers.

One can make an argument that Germany should have developed either the Ju-288 or He-177 heavy bombers but not both. However that is a subject for a separate discussion.


----------



## zoomar (Mar 23, 2010)

davebender said:


> The Ju-88 and Ju-288 are not comparable as the Ju-288 was so much larger with a corresponding larger range/payload. Rather like comparing a B-25 with a B-17.
> As you can see, the Ju-288 was in the heavy bomber class. The Ju-88 and slightly improved Ju-188 were light bombers.
> 
> One can make an argument that Germany should have developed either the Ju-288 or He-177 heavy bombers but not both. However that is a subject for a separate discussion.



First of all, I am not comparing the 188 and 288 from a technical perspective. Simply saying that the effort spent on the 288 was a mistake. I would also agree that the Ju88 and 188 would barely qualify as medium bombers, but that is how the Luftwaffe employed them in the Battle of Britain. 

Second, you are wrong about the 288 and the 177. The Ju288 was the flagship of the RLM's failed "Bomber B" program (for a modern high altitude medium bomber), and it was specifically proposed by Junkers as a successor to the Ju88. It was never seen as a heavy bomber. As originally flown, it was an extremely small plane, with a wingspan of less than 52 feet with a normal loaded weight of a little over 15,000kg. It grew progressively larger and heavier during its convoluted development process, but this was more the result of the RLM adding on additional demands to what was originally designed as a rather small medium bomber than a deliberate effort to redesign it as a heavy bomber. Even the last serious version (the Ju288C) was had a wingspan of little over 74 feet. It was to be the Luftwaffe's modern medium bomber replacement for the Ju88, He111 and Do17 series. Yes, it was heavy, and could have carried a large operational load, but it wast was never intended as a heavy bomber like the He177, with its crew of seven and wingspan of over 100 feet. The He177 stemmed from a separate program ("Bomber A") for a modern heavy bomber. My source is Wm Greens old, but well researched, Warplanes of the 3rd Reich.


----------



## davebender (Mar 23, 2010)

I agree. However the fact remains the Bomber B specification gave it range / payload essentially similiar to the B-17G heavy bomber but with vastly superior aerial performance. So if the B-17 is a heavy bomber then so is the Ju-288.

July 1939. RLM issues the Bomber B specification.
…..Speed of 600kph (375mph)
…..Bomb load of 4,000kg
…..Pressurized cabin.
…..Remote control armament.


----------



## Milosh (Mar 24, 2010)

Your B-17 weight is questionable dave.

B-17D - 22,520kg
B-17E - 24,040kg
B-17F - 29,710kg
B-17G - 29,710kg

These are max take off weights.

Ju288B - Max takeoff weight: 21,000 kg


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 24, 2010)

davebender said:


> The Ju-88 and Ju-288 are not comparable as the Ju-288 was so much larger with a corresponding larger range/payload. Rather like comparing a B-25 with a B-17.
> 
> 
> *Ju-88A4.* 2 x 1,400 hp Jumo 211J engines.
> ...



I think Wiki got it wrong on this one. 

See:

Junkers Ju 88 - History, Specifications and Pictures - Military Aircraft

which does put the JU 88 into the medium bomber class.


----------



## davebender (Mar 24, 2010)

The difference between a medium bomber and light bomber is usage, not payload.

The He-111 and B-25 normally conducted level bombing from medium altitudes.

The Ju-88 and A-20 normally attack from low level. In the case of the Ju-88 it can also dive bomb. I assume the airframe was reinforced for this sort of work and additional armor installed to protect against groundfire.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 24, 2010)

davebender said:


> The difference between a medium bomber and light bomber is usage, not payload.
> 
> The He-111 and B-25 normally conducted level bombing from medium altitudes.
> 
> The Ju-88 and A-20 normally attack from low level. In the case of the Ju-88 it can also dive bomb. I assume the airframe was reinforced for this sort of work and additional armor installed to protect against groundfire.



Not my problem if the Luftwaffe misused it.

A-20s not only carried a smaller bomb load they had shorter range than than American planes in the medium bomber class. The use of B-25s and B-26s in low level attacks (the reason for those .50 cal cheek guns) didn't turn them into light bombers.


----------



## zoomar (Mar 24, 2010)

davebender said:


> The difference between a medium bomber and light bomber is usage, not payload.
> 
> The He-111 and B-25 normally conducted level bombing from medium altitudes.
> 
> The Ju-88 and A-20 normally attack from low level. In the case of the Ju-88 it can also dive bomb. I assume the airframe was reinforced for this sort of work and additional armor installed to protect against groundfire.



This is a reasonable distinction, I believe. the Ju88 and A-20 (as well as the Soviet Pe-2) are much more comparable with each other than they are with planes like the He-111, B-25, Wellington, G4M, Il-4, etc - which were designed as classic medium bombers. But no matter how one defines things there will always be awkward overlaps, such as the Betty and He-111 being also torpedo bombers, the Ju-88 and Pe-2 being dive bombers, and the A-20 being a ground attacker/strafer, and virtually all German bombers being given that ludicrous dive-bombing capability.

My tendency, however, would be to consider all of the planes mentioned above broadly as "medium bombers" because of their twin engined planform, numerous crew members, internal load capability, and defensive armament schemes, with the smaller, more agile, more multipurpose types being a separate sub-category, based as much on how they were predominantly used than any other reason. The fact that the USAAF was thoughful enough to designate the A-20 and A-26 as something other than a "bomber" is certainly to be considered in this regard, even though the A-26 was probably a better "medium bomber" than any other plane.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 24, 2010)

Now you're talking


----------



## davebender (Mar 24, 2010)

> virtually all German bombers being given that ludicrous dive-bombing capability.


That isn't quite true. 

Most German bombers were evaluated for dive bombing capability. And most (i.e. Do-217, Ju-288, He-177) had the dive bombing requirement deleted early in the development cycle. The Ju-88A and Me-410A were the largest German dive bombers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 24, 2010)

davebender said:


> That isn't quite true.
> 
> Most German bombers were evaluated for dive bombing capability. And most (i.e. Do-217, Ju-288, He-177) had the dive bombing requirement deleted early in the development cycle. The Ju-88A and Me-410A were the largest German dive bombers.




How many Do 217s were delivered with the air brake installed with an alternative tail cone packed discreetly in the bomb bay so the using unit could ditch the air brake at the first opportunity?

While a number of the German planes were not forced to dive bomb on operations some for some of them the requirement was deleted quite soon enough in the development cycle and they carried the heavier structure to the end of their days to the detriment of either performance or load carrying ability.


----------



## davebender (Mar 25, 2010)

> How many Do 217s were delivered with the air brake installed


Looks like 185 x Do-217E2 dive bombers to me. Out of 1,730 total Do-217s produced.


Dornier Do 217 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Do 217 E-2
> Level/dive bomber, fitted with tail-mounted dive brake. Powered by BMW 801L engines and armed with forward firing 15 mm MG 151, single MG 131 machine gun in dorsal turret, MG-131 in ventral step and three MG-15 machine guns. The E-2 entered production slightly later than the E-3 level bomber, and was produced in parallel, a *total of 185 being built *and entering service from summer 1941


----------

