# Mossie vs Ju88



## helmitsmit (Oct 18, 2005)

Anyone got any info about how the mossie and Ju88 faired against each other?


----------



## Erich (Oct 18, 2005)

now sir are you wanting to mention the Mossie fighter against the Ju 88A bomber or H recon craft or are you wanting to debate the night fighter versions with each other ??


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 18, 2005)

Im sure it is the nightfighter versions....


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

Yeah ...keep it at nightfighter versions only. I mean ..after all ...it is your zone of complete expertise, Erich. Were the NF Mosquitos actually feared by the Nachtjagd themselves ...or was it just propaganda? I mean - to be honest, I wouldn't have been too happy to meet a Mosquito.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 18, 2005)

I dont recall ever seeing any data to confirm that Mossies and -88's ever tangled....


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

I really don't understand how Night Fighters COULD tangle in the pitch black of night ...I mean, it couldn't have been anything like a dogfight ...could it?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 18, 2005)

Full moon, searchlights.... Besides, it was rather difficult to identify ur target to begin with... Im sure erich is combing through some extensive material as I type here...


----------



## Erich (Oct 18, 2005)

ok guys sure we can keep it in the NF mode till someone wants to add other stuff on the bomber/recon missions.

I had a conversation with one of the guys here I think last year on the fear factor concerning the Mossie. Been interviewing other German crews since that time and it seems to be an oddity almost. It appears that all German nf crews however experienced they were knew of the potential threat by the Mossie nf's but that the fear factor if you will seemed to effect some and not others. Several experiened crews never had to contend with them in the air on ops nor upon landing. Others unfortunately felt the quick four cannon blow to themselves on their very first mission and fell like a rock to their doom or bailed out wounded never to enter into another nf ever again.

It was standar practice for the what-if scenario of the Mossie or 2 to have very dimmed lights on the tarmac for landing German nf's or no lights at all. One crew like to have his mechanics wave a long dull yellow wand at runways end and they landed blind knowing that their man was at the end of the strip. Another would get to a certain hieght returning from an engagement and dive almost to the vertical on his field pulling up at the last minute to make a landing and then run his a/c almost off the field away from the hangers or dug in emplacements. by wars end the German nf's were sitting out like lame ducks rady to be pounced on as due to no fuel reserves and literally no time to build suitable hangers the a/c were covered with tarps to conceal them if they were in open turf. If by a landmark of trees they of course were 'brushed' with debris and pushed back into the forest until ready to be pulled out for the next operation. As to Mossie convergance the Ju 88G-6 crews made sure the Rückswart ( rear ward facing radar) was in perfect order as their lives could very well depend on it. It wa also during this time that Ju 88G-6 crews added another crewmen to observe for Mossies as well as add for another eyewitness to a "kill". With the cramped quarters as they were I can only imagine this extra set of eyes nearly sat in the rear gunners lap, with the MG 131 and it's ammo and besides this extra chap would also run the FuG 350Z Naxos which was also standard equipment by 1945

IV./NJG 3 Ju's at wars end: Denmark


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 18, 2005)

Interesting... So the threat from Mossie in the night was a very real problem for the -88's???

Were there any confirmed Mossie kills by those crews???

Great pic BTW...


----------



## Erich (Oct 18, 2005)

guys you are 3 posts ahead of me  

yes in fact Ju 88G-6's and Mossies XIX and XXX's did tangle on many an occassion. ACe Werner Hoffmann of I./NJG 5 was shot down by one, and he and his crew bailed out at the last second before their Ju blew sky high.

Just briefly and I know this is going to bend a few guys a bit but the He 219A's were at a disadvnatage on most missions. Of all things to not equip the hopeful star performer of the nachtjagd without rear warning radar. Ture it was fitted from time to time but was not a standard fit and the crew paid for it with their lives......

Friend and ace Heinz Rokker of I./NJG 2 shot down one Mossie NF towards the last 2-3 months of the war close to St. Trond airfield.

without digging out the data, it appears the best response a Ju 88G-6 crew to do was fly allow the tickling of the radar headset to get louder and then bank in a most severe way downward either right or left toward the earth, or literally dropping flaps, the undercarriage and brake for dear life and allow the Mossie to overfly (this happened on several ops) and hopeful you could speed up and be the pursuer. At least on 2 missions with 2 different pilots this trick worked, and they were able to shoot down the Mossies. other times it just worked long enough to drive hard for the haze below and get lost in ground radiance which would plug up the Allied AI


----------



## Erich (Oct 18, 2005)

Les overall the German night fighter arm knew that unless they were on the ball on every mission they could be shot down by Allied nf's especially the Mossie. It is just that for some crews they personally felt that the most concern they had was the RAF 4 engine heavy and the return fire of the .303's ! strange eh. losing power, or hits from the mg's on critical areas could then mean they were dead meat in the air for any allied twin engine fighter. both RAF and German Ju 88's radar implements could detect one another, it largely depended on whom was the quicker on the ID and the firing button. I have to think from interviews, reading, and chatting with other research friends, archival documentation that in most instances the German crews that were shot down were under great fatigue and became careless as there is enough losses reports mentioning the Ju shot down in action (im Luftkampf bei nachtjäger). Evidently the radio man was able to call in to say they were under attack..........many times too late. Also truth must be made of the landing shoot downs and the many accidents of pilots not paying attention during a landing approach and due to Mossie scares.

Reality for the German nf force shows that the He 219 gruppe I./NJG 1 and the Bf 110G-4 units suffered the most at the hands of RAF night fighters primarily the Mossie. Again I share my feelings that the Ju 88G-1 and especially the G-6 version was equipped with very suitable rear warning means.


----------



## Erich (Oct 18, 2005)

a quick reply as my hands are getting very tired with this carperal tunnel

here is a pic of a NJG 4 Ju 88G-6 fitted with the latest Berlin 240a-1 radar set - AI. the machine has been pulled out of the trees at wars end for examination.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 18, 2005)

VERY interesting erich, good stuff.......


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

Yeah, excellent information and great pictures. Did the Allies know the Nachtjagd system and send NF Mossies to harass them in their own area ...or was it an active patrol of the bomber lanes to intercept any Nachtjagd that went in against the bombers? The Mossies would also harass the Germans at their own airfields right? Aside from the pest bomber Mossies that actually went out to bomb these airfields ...did the NF chase 'em home ?


----------



## Sal Monella (Oct 18, 2005)

Perhaps a more interesting comparison would be the Ju-188 against the Mosquito.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 18, 2005)

Oh BTW, erich, I just purchased Jagdgeschwader 52 : The Experten, and Jagdgeschwader 301/302 "Wilde Sau".... U recommended Willies book awhile back.....

Is the other one also a good book?


----------



## Erich (Oct 18, 2005)

Sal if you want to open up by giving some info go ahead as I am all ears. I can give German accts of nf's and that is about it concerning the evasion and ops against Mossies. If one of our English historians can fill us in on Mossies tactics agasint German Nf's or bombers would love to read about it....

Reschkes book should be great Les, but not sure of the JG 52 title.

Plan I'll be back to answer your questions on the morrow


----------



## Glider (Oct 19, 2005)

Some Mossies were ordered to maintain patrol patterns to protect the bomber streams but after a certain time they could go freelancing when it up to individual crews as to what they should do. Other planes would be detailed to harass the german nightfighters.
I have read acconts where pilots concentrated on areas around the beacons the Germans used, others would try to contrate on the airfields. Some even tried going into the bomber stream to identify the German fighters that had made it that far.
As a result as Erich indicated the German fighter crews felt that they were the hunted almost from the moment they started up their engines until landing.
I have read about experiments using what we would call early airbourne control units where master fighter control planes guided RAF fighters into areas of German activity. These reached operational trials but the idea was ahead of the technology and it didn't work. 
Certainly the Navy had specially equipped fighter control ships with extra radar and communication facilities to control nightfighters in the early days of an invasion.
The USN developed similar ships to be used as radar pickets to give advance warning of suicide attacks.


----------



## Glider (Oct 19, 2005)

Erich. I meant to add that your posts on this topic are really very good and always informative.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 19, 2005)

Interesting stuff Erich and Glider. Nice pics as well Erich!


----------



## helmitsmit (Oct 19, 2005)

So although the Mossie had sparkling performance it more about who made the first mistake. Due to the visiblity at night. The radar must have also been a factor as both sides were continually up grading. 

I heard a report from a German nightfighter pilot, flying ME109G10 in a Flypast magazine. 

He sure a Mossie some ft bellow him dive on him but he couldn't give close enough so he open up his engine to max overide and still failed to get close enough and then his engine went bang and he baled out! 

I know it is a lot different from the Ju88 but if an Me109 had problem. The JU88 didn't have a chance. And as they were bigger then the 109 they would be easier to see. So it must have been luck that they shot any mossies down at all!?[/i]


----------



## Udet (Oct 19, 2005)

I have always had a rough time attempting to understand why is it the allies claim to have had superb twin engined fighters while tagging in a fast track procedure all German twin engined fighters "as no match against our fighters".


----------



## plan_D (Oct 19, 2005)

The Mosquito was an awesome twin-engined fighter. And most widely accepted among both sides as being the best night fighter of the war.


----------



## Erich (Oct 19, 2005)

Was ist Geschwindigkeit der Schwärzung ?

depends whom you talk with plan. In most cases yes the Mossie late mark nf's were a hand full. we have to remember the Bf 110 and Ju 88 were first marked out as destroyer/bombers and not first as night fighters. the Ju 88 especially is a large craft but most sutiable for nocturnal missions and it was the preferred steed in the Luftwaffe arsenal by 1945

more coming ........


----------



## Smokey (Oct 19, 2005)

I heard that the Ju 88 could out turn the mosquito


----------



## Glider (Oct 19, 2005)

Udet
Calling it a fast track procedure is a bit thick. The He219 was proably the best nightfighter the Germans had and in performance there wasn't much between them. However the Radar fitted to the German nightfighters didn't match up to those available to the RAF and of course the Mossie.
The Ju88 nightfighter was a converted standard bomber albeit a good one, but it couldn't match the Mossie. The Me110 was also a good nightfighter but again lacked the performance of the Mossie.

People talk about the Me262 nightfighter but frankly and I admit that this is a personal view, I feel that it was the wrong plane for the job.

So for the nightfighters the Germans lacked the combination of plane and Radar. They could and did inflict serious damage to the bombers but against the Mossie they were outclassed. 

If you talk day fighters I don't know anyone who says that the Me262 was a bad two engined fighter. If you go for the early 1939/40 I would argue that the Me110 was as good as any other two engined fighter around.


----------



## Erich (Oct 19, 2005)

the He 219 was out the door by 1945. Non proven. the Ju 88G-6 was coming to it's own and it is wrong to presume that Allied radar was above standard of the Germans as it was not. The war came to early for the German techs to mass produce several innovations that were not jammable in the spring of 45.

not to get off topic but the Me 262A-1a was superiror to anything the Allies had at night. the stats already prove it. problem was the fuel consumption, again for the Germans the war ended before the enclosed celled Me 262B-2a bcame available which would have dominated the skies but I do not wish to talk of what ifs.

as I said more to come, lets please continue Mossie vs Ju 88 shall we ?


----------



## Udet (Oct 19, 2005)

The capabilities of the Mossie are acknowledged.

However, and putting things this way, if a Mossie and Ju 88 clashed in daylight, are they sure the Junkers stood no chance, at all?

I´d have the assertion come under the closest of the scrutinies.

Let´s recall some issues redarding the Ju 88:

During the BoB, the Ju 88 A, as a medium bomber, once the bombolad was released, had extraordinary manouvering and climbing capabilities.
It could hit the 480km/hr mark, while the Hurricane Mk I sent out to intercept it had a maximum speed about 525km/hr, not what one could call a dramatic difference.

Think of a "what if"...the Bf109G´s or Fw190s intercepting B-17s in 1944.
The B-17 had a maximum speed of 620km/hr after releasing its bombs, only 40km/hr slower than their killer?

Keeping in mind the real fast process in the evolution and gearing up of combat aircraft during WWII, I do think this is illustrative.

I have talked to RAF veterans who failed to catch Ju88s during the BoB. 

The late Ju 88 G-6 fighter, compared with its former medium bomber relative, increased its speed in 150km/hr, reaching nearly 630km/hr, also retaining flying abilities.


----------



## Erich (Oct 19, 2005)

I think I better include some info from my forth coming book " Im Schatten des Mundes liegen " ( Lying in the Shadow of the Moon ), and hopeful this will be of some interest. 

By the way several Mosquito night fighters were shot down by rear gunners of both Bf 110G-4's and Ju 88G's


----------



## plan_D (Oct 19, 2005)

I suppose gunners would be more deadly at night - after all the attacker does have to get closer to actually see what he's shootin' at. 

And I think a Mosquito would have the edge in a daylight dogfight.


----------



## Erich (Oct 19, 2005)

plan I am not sure but the German rear gunners may have had a night fighters moon on the night of the Mossie shoot downs.

what I mean by this is that the Mossie was highlighted by the bright moonlight so there was much more than a familiar outline for the German crew to identify. A curse for the attacker, a saviour for the hunted prey


----------



## plan_D (Oct 19, 2005)

True ... the Nachtjagd were kind of stuck in limbo though - they were the hunters and the hunted ...while the Mosquitos were the hunters, the bombers the hunted. 

Moonlight would have been a blessing and a curse for the nachtjagd when on the prowl.


----------



## Erich (Oct 19, 2005)

only a helpmate at low altitude against ground targets on the east and western fronts but that is another story. I will also make comment on helmetsmit Bf 109G-10 story as I have a bag of treats on this unit(s) as well......


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 19, 2005)

***Licking Lips and Salivating in Anticipation***


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 20, 2005)

Look forward to it Erich


----------



## Erich (Oct 20, 2005)

I've go so many scattered notes in the office this morn...arg !

let me touch on this briefly as it will be covered in our "Mosquito-jagd über Deutschland" book, and I am not wanting to flit this work. so to keep you all in suspense.

The Bf 109G-6/AS and later G-14/AS and G-10's in early 45 were used to chase down the Mossie bombers flying on three approaches towards Berlin to and away from the target back home. I./NJG 11 and 10.(N)/JG 300 as well as 1./NJGr 10 had the 109's and were used in this capacity from the summer of 44 till Novembers end when there was a revamping of the gruppen, 10 th staffel of JG 300 became the basis for II./NJG 11 and a new 10th staffel flying day missions occurred. NJG 11 then was removed from the anti mossie duties to chase down RAF 4 engine jobs as well as NJGr 10 single engine.

The tactik used was to get airborne individually and not by schwarm or staffel and follow at a grater height the Mossie bombers in "their" lanes highlighted by searchlights........... this wasw Helle nacht and not the typical Wilde Sau technique as most are familiar with. Once the Mossie was seen the Bf 109G pilot was hopeful he had the height and speed advantage and would dive down to try and catch the Mosquito. sometimes this worked and sometimes it did not.
I know of only one incident so far at least in the 10th staffel that a 109G-6/AS was returning from a mission to base and was attacked by a Mossie nf. the Mossie nf pilot overshot the 109 as the 109 pilot did a slight dive and turned hard and got in behind the Mossie and let go with his 2cm cannon bringing the Mossie crashing down to earth..........

The incidents involving nf vs nf of course are a bit different with the Mossie usaully being the hunter and the Ju 88G-6 crew the prey, evading, changing altitude, quick dives and then brough back up to altitude with the radar operator always listening for the change in the tickling in his earphones ~ an enemy intruder in the area.....
and as I said before earlier it was not uncommon after a long night that the German crew just headed for ground and opened up the bird and raced for home, hoping that the RAF AI would collect ground interference and not detect the Ju......the Ju pilot being on his toes that he would not send his crew into a hill  yes it happened and I have pics to show these ugly mistakes.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 20, 2005)

Maximum speed for a Ju-88 A1 was about 460-465 kph, and about 60 kph slower with a full bomb/fuel load, mostly due to additional drag by the bombs which hung on external mounts

The A5, with longer span wings, Jumo 211Gs and more equipment (extra armour, more guns, revised undercarrige) was about 5 kph slower. 

The A4 recieved the uprated Jumo 211Fs, could do about 475-480 kph unladen, but it didn't see BoB service.

A Hurricane wouldn't have too much trouble intercepting a loaded Ju88A1/A5. However, after they had dropped their bombs Ju-88 crews could generally enter a prolonged shallow dive and run all the way back to the French coast at more than 300mph, which made them very dificult to intercept on their return runs. 

Generally, Allied twin engined fighters were the superior of their Axis counterparts. The P-38 was the only twin engined fighter of the war which could effectively dogfight with single engined fighters, as well having the aboility to haul the same bombload as most medim bombers by the end of the war. The Westland Whirlwind was described as a superlative dogfighting machine, but the expensive airframe, the Rolls-Royce engine situation and changing operational requirements prevented it from becoming the sucess it should have been. Performance estimates for the Whirlwind Mk II, with Merlin XIIs were around 420 mph. Essentially the Whirlwind was an airframe without an engine.

The early German zerstoyers (Me-110, Me-210) were not capable of defending themseves adequately against single seqat fighters. The later Me-410 was quite good, but its opposition, mostly in the form of escorting P-38s, P-51s and P-47s, were just too good in too many numbers. 

The Mosquito had the lowest loss rate of any Allied bomber of the war. It was fast, adaptable to almost any role, heavily armed and capable of doing things no other Allied medium bomber could. In many ways it was the couterpart to the Ju-88 and their evolutions reflect that.

The Mosquito evolved first as a unarmed fast day-bomber (380 mph in first variants), then later into fighter, fighter bomber and night fighter variants. Emphasis was placed on attack; better bomber and fighter bomber variants with larger bombloads and better aiming equipment.

The Ju-88 started as a medium attack and dive bomber. Later variants shifted the emphasis to defence; night fighters and anti-tank/ground attack types. It still saw used as an night intruder and long range photo-reconissance plane, but decreasing emphasis was placed on these roles.


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 21, 2005)

According to this site 

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/germany/junkers/ju_88/Ju_88_nf.htm

the nightfighter late versions of the Ju 88 could actually reach speed in the 630 Kmh range (see G7b) with a more than respectable cruise speed of 560 kmh.

The G7c, with the new covered aerials could even had a bit less drag and be a bit faster.

Junkers Ju 88G-1 
Role: Night-fighter 
Crew: Four 
Dimensions:Length (excluding radar) 47 ft 8.5 in (14.54 m), (including SN-2 aerials) 54 ft 1.5 in (16.50 m); Height 15 ft 11 in (4.85 m); Wing Span 65 ft 7.5 in (20.0 m); Wing Area 586.63sq ft (54.5 sq m) 
Engine(s): Two 14 cylinder, air cooled, BMW 801D-2 radials of 1,700 hp (1268 kW) each. 
Weights: Empty Equipped 20,020 lb (9,081 kg); Normal Take-off 28,870 lb (13,095 kg); Maximum Take-off 32,385 lb (14,690 kg) 
Performance: Maximum level speed 356 mph (573 kph) at 27,890 ft (8,500 m) with SN-2 but no upward-firing guns, 342 mph (550 kph) at same altitude with 'Schräge Musik' installation; Service ceiling 29,000 ft (8,840 m); Normal range 1,553 mls (2,500 km); Maximum endurance on internal fuel 4.75 hours. 
Armament: Four fixed forward-firing 20mm MG 151 cannon in ventral tray with 200 rounds each and one flexible 13 mm MG 131 machine-gun at rear of cockpit with 500 rounds. Optional 'Schräge Musik' installation in upper fuselage with two 20 mm MG 151 cannon firing obliquely forward 


Junkers Ju 88G-7b 
Role: Night-fighter 
Crew: Three 
Dimensions:Length (excluding radar) 47 ft 8.5 in (14.54 m); Height 15 ft 11 in (4.85 m); Wing Span 65 ft 7.5 in (20.0 m); Wing Area 586.63sq ft (54.5 sq m) 
Engine(s): Two liquid cooled, 12 cylinder inverted-Vee, Junkers Jumo 213E of 1,725 hp (? kW) each. 
Weights: Empty Equipped 20,503 lb (9,300 kg); Normal Take-off 28,885 lb (13,100 kg); Maximum Take-off 32,353 lb (14,675 kg) 
Performance: Maximum level speed 270 mph (434 kph) at sea level, 363 mph (585 kph) at 33,500 ft (10,200 m), 389 mph (626 kph) at 29,529 ft (9,000 m) with MW-50 emergency boost; Cruising speed 348 mph (560 kph) at 29,529 ft (9,000 m); Initial rate of climb 1640 ft/min (500 m/min); Time to 30,185 ft (9,200 m) 26 min 24 sec; Service ceiling 32,810 ft (10,000 m); Normal range 1,398 mls (2,250 km); Endurance (at maximum economical cruising speed) 3.72 hours at 29,800 ft (9,083 m). 
Armament: Four fixed forward-firing 20mm MG 151 cannon in ventral tray with 200 rounds each, two fixed oblique upward-firing 20mm MG 151 cannon in dorsal 'Schräge Musik' position with 200 rounds each, one flexible 13 mm MG 131 machine-gun at rear of cockpit with 500 rounds.


----------



## Erich (Oct 21, 2005)

Parmigiano :

please allow me to make some corrections on the Ju 88G nf's.

first the G-1 did not have a crew of four, it was three.

Also and this is very important there never was a G-7 variant(s), also G-6 a, b and c are incorrect. there was never a sub-variant nomenclature as this was set up after hostilities by the RAF upon capture and inspection.
The G-6 could bust out 425mph on a flat out using MW 50 for a short term of 10 to 20 minutes, sometimes blowing out the Jumo engines during escape manuevers.


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 21, 2005)

Thank you Erich, I just cut-and-paste from the linked site, have no know how about the (infinite) variants of the 88!
Probably in the site they mixed up G6 and G7.

But apart from the emergency speed with the MW50 for the G6 (.. and btw 425 mph for 10-20 min is a hell of a run!) , what i find remarkable (if the site can be trusted) is the cruise at around 350 mph : this is the real operative speed and is a very fast pace, directly comparable with the Mossie. I always thought that the Mossie was much faster than any other 'bomber born' twins.


----------



## Erich (Oct 21, 2005)

Here is some reseach still going on with an English contact. Ace and friend Heinz Rokker of 2./NJG 2 was the German pilot.

Hi Erich

The following is the copy of an e-mail I sent to George Sorrell niece, who is researching their family history. It is briefly what I have discovered and can prove with many documents and letters. It will be enough to tell you what I have and should at any time you want more them you only have to ask.

George Sorrell joined the RAF in Sept. 43. He trained as a Flight Engineer, probably at St. Athan. Having completed his training, he have then been sent to a "Conversion Unit", where crews had already been selected but did not require a Flight Engineer. At this point the crews moved on to 4 engined aircraft. In this case, George went to No. 1659 Heavy Conversion Unit at Topcliffe, where he joined the crew of "Jake" Thompson. Jake and all his crew were Canadians and belonged to 432 Squadron RCAF. It was at that time quite usual for "Commonwealth Squadrons to have British Flt/Engineers as all were trained in this Country.




All have since died from natural causes. Except Bill Worthington. The crew were generally older than usual (in their 30's) as most of them had been instructing in Canada. The two Gunners were 19.

From there they moved to 432 Squadron at East Moor, Yorkshire, on 31St Aug. 1944. The crew flew together on 16 missions.

On the night of 14th/!5th Feb.1945 the crew were to be sent on a raid on Chemnitz near the Czech boarder. At the last min. Bill was declared "unfit to fly", through a tummy bug and his place was taken by Dick Stringer.

On that night the crew were flying Halifax Mk VII, RG449, coded QO- S of 432 Sqdn and took off from East Moor at 4.49pm. The trip should have taken about 7 a half hours. They completed the trip and dropped their bombs on Chemnitz and took a homeward course. Night fighter activity was extensive and at about 10.15pm they were attacked by a Junkers Ju.88. The first burst of fire set the right hand inner engine on fire and the second the left inner engine. This would have had a dramatic effect on the aircraft and the pilot gave the order to "Bale out". I have a report from one of the crew, who states the order of bale out and that the Flight Engineers station had been demolished by the gun fire and that George had been killed as a result of it. The aircraft crashed just west of Schonau an der Brent. All survived their jump, but George crashed with the aircraft. I have a first hand report that what little remained of George was buried in the local churchyard until 1947, if my memory serves me correctly, when he was transfer to the War Cemetery at Hanover.


Last May, Son Peter and his German wife visited Schonau, took many photographs and interviewed some people who remembered the incident. They were also shown the actual crash site. From my enquiries I am 99% sure that they were attacked by a Ju.88 flown by Heinz Rokker, the number 6 or 8 on the list of top night fighter aces. He is still alive and can confirm he and his crew shot down a "four engined" bomber at that locality and at about that time.







and yes friend the 350mph and faster is not a myth of the Ju 88G-6 in the cruise mode. The a/c fighter version was a powerful contender in the night skies as a nachtjäger.


----------



## Erich (Oct 21, 2005)

some more comments. After the SN-2d or FuG 220d set was acquired and used on a successful basis the FuG 218 Neptun was being developed and sent to operational units, the FuG 220d was still the standard during 1945 and nother radar aerial fittings occurred for a more streamlined look, with less drag and thus more speed. Two version were used on a very limited basis the first was a horizontal fitting with the aerials in an X fitting toward a point directly in center of the nose outward as shown in the II./NJG 5 Gruppenkommandeurs 88G-6 a/c. Note the black doppelwinkel >> by the wing.....






and then to completly reduce the drag and provide maximum speed and endurance a special plywood nosecone was constructed to overfit the horizontal pole and X configuration with only the top of the X elements protruding and the tip covered in a special clear plexi-glas cover. the unit then was on par with the latest Mossie XXX in performance. The FuG 220d in this set-up was of limited operational use and the exposed FuG 220d with the 45 degree angled dipoles was continued to be produced.
A craft from NJG 4 under RCAF management at war's end


----------



## Udet (Oct 21, 2005)

I have footage of Ju 88 As in trial flights: the manouvering is stunning. 

Also I have footage of combat flights of Ju88s over England in 1940.

I will insist the difference between top speed of *Ju 88 As and Hurricane Mk I* is far from significant. *Hardly an advantage *for the RAF interceptor in that particular department.

Although off-topic, I used the example in an attempt to illustrate I do not believe the *much faster*, *up-graded *and *improved* Ju 88 G´s were "hopeless" against the Mossie.

As I said, Mossie´s performance is acknowledged; what I do think it is not accurately acknowledged would be the capabilities of the Ju88´s.



In fact, as Super Jabberwocky pointed out, a phenomenal dive was another feature of the Ju 88s.

Jabber: I have collected evidence on the 480 km/hr (bombload-free) attained by the Ju 88 on the flat run during the BoB, and of Hurricane pilots failing to catch it -and also of several who got killed by the MGs of the German craft-.



Jabber, regarding the Me 410 -do any web search- and you will find the typical allied prescription when referring to the latest Zerstörer; it is put pretty much a "good plane *but*"...but followed by any of these two choices of words:

*(i)* "was no match against allied fighters"; and
*(ii)* "stood very little chance against more nimble single engine enemy fighters".

The Zerstörer was involved in heavy air battles during 1944, and scored a good number of enemy fighters and not just heavy bombers. Did it take heavy losses? Sure; so did the great 109s, 190s, P-47s, P-51s, Spitfires...

The *(i)* specs (a nice feature: its weaponry, any single engine fighter of the USAAF or RAF caught in the right aiming angle could be pulverized to dust) and *(ii) *known combat record of the 410 suggests me it could more than deal, at least, with the P-38. 

A rougher time could certainly come when engaging P-47s, P-51s or Spitfires, still I am not so sure if it was "hopeless". Also, the crews who flew it in 1944, a year of blood, praised the capabilities of the plane in combat. I do not think they were making tales up regarding the potential of the twin engined toy.


Finally, and back on topic, the fundamental target of the Nachtjäger were the heavy bombers and not the Mossies. 

Now, in view of a one vs. one engagement, I´d rather withhold any prediction.


----------



## Erich (Oct 21, 2005)

well lets remember one thing, the Ju 88G crews primary function WAS to bring down RAF 4-motors and secondary watch for Mossies or any Allied nf.. Not sure if any German nf attack was thwarted by the intervention of a Mossie nf, it is just on the trail going home that the German nf crew had to be a whole on top of things functioning unit.

As can be seen the quoted speed cruise and not by me mind you, was competitve with the latter marks of Mosquito nf's so in respects the Ju 88G was a larger a/c and not quite as nimble it could be a fair running race on the flat out, but with any intruder sortie the hunter had to have the quick jump on his prey no matter what nation would be contrived. One thing seen of course is the Mossie only had two crew members and no rearward armament something that upon different views could of been sorely missed.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 21, 2005)

Excellent info and pics erich... Thanks.... Good info all around fellas....


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 21, 2005)

Nice stuff Erich!


----------



## Erich (Oct 22, 2005)

Guten Abend gents !

thought I would throw a couple everyones way. just pulled this up.

Hauptmann Kamstieß of II./NJG 2 flying a Ju 88G-6 on the night of December 27, 1944 shot down 1 Mossie XXX over Holsbeek, Belgium, Mossie coded MM 709 of 219th squadron, flown by D.L. Ryalls and J.B. Hampson.

Unteroffizier Scherer on the night of January 13, 1945 at 00.28 hrs shot down 1 Mosquito South-east of Cuxhaven as his 3rd victory flying with II./NJG 4.

Ofw. Rudi Mangelsdorf flying a Ju 88G-6 in 12./NJG 3 shot down a Halifax at 22.05 hrs and then at 22.11 hrs a Mosquito VI coded YP-C north of Hannover over Beckedorf on January 16, 1945.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 22, 2005)

erich, are there any good books regarding the Ju-88G's???


----------



## Erich (Oct 22, 2005)

Zip, nadda my friend !

I do wish. A JaPo book is suppose to come out on the Ju 88G last year with plenty of photos but it never materialized, so am not sure if anyone is going to except yours truly 8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 22, 2005)

Well... Hurry the fuck up u slow bastard.... We're all waiting...


----------



## Erich (Oct 22, 2005)

Hells bells taco shells ! hey man it's only been 15 years so far .........  like the Germans say the weather is like an Alt Frau sommer and I have plenty of time. Not really


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 22, 2005)

Udet, 

the Kennblatt for the Ju-88 A4 states that max speed is 470 kph at 5.3 km.

The A4 was a revision of the Ju-88 A1, with uprated Jumo 211F or 211J engines producing 1,400ps (1,380 hp) and the longer span wings of the Ju-88 A5. The 211B/G fitted to the Ju-88 A1 produced 1,200 ps (1,185 hp).

Most sources commonly quote the Ju-88 A1s top speed as between 445 and 460 kph, with the average figure being 450 kph.

Are you suggesting that the Ju-88 A1, which was lighter but with less powerful engines, was some 10 kph faster than the bomber that replaced it?

To further my argument look at the performance of the Ju-86Ca/b, a dedicated heavy day/night fighter variant. It has better aerodynamics, only 400 kg more weight, fewer crew and higher power egines than the A1. Top speed was 500 kph at 6000m for the day fighter and 485 kph at the same height for the night fighter version, the difference being the weight of the FuG 202/212 intercept radar and the associated antenna.


----------



## Erich (Oct 22, 2005)

am curious are you tying to compare stats with Junkers 88 bombers with Ju 88G-6 Nachtjäger ..... ?

on the dge, surrendered D5+KV in Denmark. V and X staffels were lined up one behind the other in rows, the X group had black spinners and the V had the white tips. It has been said of the Ost front gruppen that carried spiralschnauze from time to time; that it would throw off the Soviet AA gunners during day ground attack missions. seems rather pointless as a Staffel ID marking at night but rather a collection point for the staffeln aircraft. Photo curtousy of the Royal Dutch Airforce archiv


----------



## Erich (Oct 22, 2005)

this is a well known image but very Kühl nonetheless....surrender of a mixture of NJG 3 forces, Ju 88G-6's, Bf 110G-4's and an array of Ju 88 bombers. Note the differences in camo and there is quite a bit. The standard RLM 75 greys with RLM 76 white-blue-grey, and also eveident is the RLM 76 Grey-blue with the Welle or meander pattern of squiggles of green-violet for use as ground camo. Note the reversal of the Ju 88 Bomber camo dark with the light grey squig's over the fuselage for travel over the ocean

comments ?


----------



## Erich (Oct 22, 2005)

also of note is the rudder and flaps locks inplace. photo courtesy again of the RDAF. Check out the bomber wing in the foreground and the all blue-grey tail of the Ju 88G-6


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 22, 2005)

Nice pic Erich. Interesting to see the differences in camo. What happened to them all after they where surrendered, where they flight tested and then scrapped or what happened?


----------



## Erich (Oct 22, 2005)

several examples were flown back to England, with different radar sets. then torn apart or flown till wrecked or destroyed by weather. for NJG 3's Junkers most were lined up opposite of the Bf 110G-4's still left in the nacht wing and then blown up. Here is a nice colour example of that Welle pattern I was talking of off a Ju 88G-6. would love to have this example in my office


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 22, 2005)

Looks like grafiti! Still cool though, would be great to have on your wall.


----------



## Erich (Oct 22, 2005)

yes it would Gnomey !  

her is anaother G-6 unit under new management but you can see clearly the heavy ~ Welle ~ pattern


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 22, 2005)

Nice pics Erich. Do you have any of a good size in colour? Would make a great backround!


----------



## Erich (Oct 22, 2005)

well lets see now.....actually they are a bit faded over time of 60 years like this one, more of the IV./NJG 3 bunch with a G-1 variant in the center


----------



## Erich (Oct 22, 2005)

from I./NJG 3 and Kommandeur Werner Huseman's Bordfünker, RK winner H.G. Schierholz. From the RK web-site

Ritterkreuzträger Hans-Georg Schierholz
Oberfeldwebel, Nachtjäger

Hans-Georg Schierholz wurde am 16. August 1921 in Lage/Werra/Lipper Bergland geboren.
Er begann am 15.08.1936 mit der Segenfliegerausbildung, die er am 10.09.1936 abschloss.
Nach seiner Arbeitsdienstpflicht, die vom 01.04.1939 bis zum 25.10.1939 andauerte, meldete er sich zur Luftwaffe. So wurde er am 01.12.1939 zur Luftnachrichtentruppe nach Berlin-Kladow einberufen.
Nach erfolgter Bordfunkerausbildung vom 01.04.1940 bis 13.09.1940 an der Bordfunkerschule in Halle/Saale kam er am 14.09.1940 zur weiteren Ausbildung an die Blindflugschule Stargard in Pommern und ab dem 16.10.1940 an die Zerstörerschule nach Schleißheim, wo er seine Ausbildung beendete.
Er war unter anderem in Einweisungsflügen unterrichtet worden, in taktischem FT-Funkverkehr, in der Flugsicherung, bei Ziel- und Übungsflügen, im Luftschießen, bei Platzflügen, in der Eigen- und Feindpeilung, sowie auf Verbandsflügen.
Am 05.02.1941 erfolgte seine Versetzung zur 1. (Ergänzungsstaffel) des Nachtjagdgeschwaders 3 nach Echterding. Hier flog er mit dem Flugzeugführer Rudolf Frank, den er von seiner Ausbildung in Schleißheim kannte, weitere Einweisungs- und Übungsflüge.
Am 01.03.1941 wird Schierholz zum Gefreiten befördert und die Besatzung Frank zur 1. Staffel der I. Gruppe des Nachtjagdgeschwaders 3, nach Vechta versetzt.
Am 09.05.1941 startete die Besatzung frank zu ihrem ersten Nachtjagdeinsatz mit einer Me 110 (Kennzeichen L1+GH). Der erste Abschusserfolg brachte der 04.07.1941 als man einen britischen Wellington-Bomber abschoss. Für die Beteiligung erhielt Schierholz am 04.07.1941 das Eiserne Kreuz II. Klasse.
Bis zum 13.08.1941 führte die Besatzung Frank 20 Nachteinsätze durch und verdiente sich damit die Frontflugspange für Nachtjäger in Bronze. Weiterhin wurde Schierholz mit Wirkung vom 01.09.1941 zum Unteroffizier befördert.
Am 01.05.1942 schoss man den 4. Gegner ab, wofür Schierholz am 01.05.1942 das Eiserne Kreuz I. Klasse erhielt und am 06.07.1942 die Frontflugspange für Nachtjäger in Silber für den 60. Nachteinsatz.
Am 30.06.1942 musste Schierholz mit dem Fallschirm abspringen, da der kühler der Maschine zerschossen wurde.
Am 30. Juni 1942 verlegte die Gruppe nach Rheine/Westfalen. Die Besatzung Frank stieg nun um auf eine Dornier 217. Im Januar 1943 befand sich die Besatzung wieder in Vechta, fliegt er wieder mit der Me 110. Im April 1943 wird er zur 2. Staffel des Nachtjagdgeschwaders 3 nach Wittmundhafen versetzt und auf der Ju 88 eingewiesen. Während er später vom Flugplatz Gilze-Rijen startet erhält er nach 110 Nachteinsätzen am 28.08.1943 die Frontflugspange für Nachtjäger in Gold.
Am 27.071943 liegt die Gruppe wieder in Wittmundhafen und verlegt Anfang 1944 wieder nach Vechta. Dort wird Schierholz am 01.02.1944 zum Feldwebel befördert und erhielt für 15 Abschussbeteiligungen am 20.03.1944 den Ehrenpokal für besondere Leistungen im Luftkrieg. Am selben Tag wurde ihm für 10 weitere Abschüsse das Deutsche Kreuz in Gold verliehen.
Am 26.04.1944 wurde die Maschine abgeschossen, Schierholz und der Bordwart Schneider konnten sich mit dem Fallschirm retten, Frank allerdings kam zu Tode. Ihm wurde posthum das 531. Eichenlaub verliehen und zum Leutnant befördert.
Schierholz flog ab den 16.06.1944 mit Major Werner Husemann, dem Gruppenkommandeur der I. Gruppe des Nachtjagdgeschwaders 3. Bis zum 18.08.1944 fliegt er mit der Me 110 und der Ju 88 und wird zum Oberfeldwebel befördert.
Nach 50 Nachtabschüssen wird Schierholz zum Ritterkreuz eingereicht und erhält es am 29.10.1944. Husemann hatte es bereits nach dem 30. Abschuss am 30.09.1944 erhalten.
Nach einem Einsatz am 26.11.1944 musste die Maschine im Raum Ringelnatter notlanden. Schierholz hatte einen Steckschuss im Unterschenkel erhalten.
Schierholz absolvierte 212 Nachteinsätzen und 57 Abschussbeteiligungen und 4 Fallschirmausstiege.
Den Krieg beendete er in Grove/Dänemark
Hans-Georg Schierholz starb am 12. Februar 1986 in Lippstadt/Nordrhein-Westfalen.

During 1945 Werner Huseman's first gruppe did much in the way of protection of the northern waters of Denmark and Germany against the RAF and their "Gardening" (mining operations). Equipped with the Ju 88G-6 in December of 44 and fitted with the FuG 220D set


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 23, 2005)

Nice stuff Erich.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2005)

I love that photo, Erich.


----------



## Erich (Oct 23, 2005)

an addition to the above German text: a small but noteworthy foto of Werner Huseman Kommandeur of I./NJG 3 and his crew with the Ritterkreuz winner Hans-Georg Schierholz next to their non-com wart. A crew of 4 with the Ju 88G-6 in the back ground at base.


----------



## Erich (Oct 23, 2005)

last captured example for the eve.....another IV./NJG 3 bird. Note the individual Black letter A on the nose indicating the individual aircraft in the staffel. May indicate the Staffelkapitän's mount but then again ..... also a slight variation of the welle pattern camo, grey-violet over a very light Blue-white. Old pic and colours have a tendancy to be slightly washed out






think the Bat smilie is ap-prapo for the night fighter thread.....


----------



## Erich (Oct 24, 2005)

I do believe that some of you Mossie experten should post the RAF nf details as it is not my intent to make this thead so one-sided


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 24, 2005)

Nice pics Erich.

Here is some info on the Mossie http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html pages/DE HAVILLAND DH98 MOSQUITO.htm shows all the various marks.

Here is some information on the MKXIX NF http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.pl?nav=uk30&page=mos_19





NF MK36





Mosquito NF preparing for a mission against German NF





It is a model but shows it nicely


----------



## Erich (Oct 25, 2005)

29th squadron Mossie ....


----------



## Erich (Oct 25, 2005)

sehr gut ! found my correspondance with ace and friend Heinz Rokker and his last mission of the war, the last kill being a Mossie night fighter..... he had first thought it was a P-61B but further research indicates otherwise

more on this


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 25, 2005)

Rokker was one hell of a pilot....


----------



## Erich (Oct 26, 2005)

a kleine prelude ..........

I./NJG 2 Kommandeur was RK mit Eichenlaub Hauptmann Gerhard Raht who by wars end had some 171 missions and 58 victoreis to his credit






the man that supported his success was friend and Bordfünker Leutnant Anton Heinemann who served on Rahts crew almost from the very start with 170 missions to his credit and aiding Raht with 56 Abschuße.






this crew besides being totaly brilliant in the night skies over the Reich scored multiple kills on several nights, most notably on the eve of 7.2.45 with 6 RAF Lancasters shot down at:

22.22
23.41
23.00
00.80
00.16 and 
00.23 hrs

with Raht and Fahenjunker-Feldwebel Heinemann were Unteroffizer Rohlfs-Zoll and Bordmechaniker Unteroffizier Hesse. Also a very successful night was the last mission of Heinz Rokker and his crew, that of 15.3.45 When Kommandeur Raht and his crew shot down another 5 Lancsters flying their Ju 88G-6 coded: 4R+AB equipped with FuG 350ZC naxos and the standard FuG 220d set with 45 degree dipoles. Schragwaffen of two 2cm weapons as standard. The RAF heavies were shot down at:

20.49
21.00
21.09
21.14 and
21.20 hrs.

On April 15, 1945 Raht was presented the Oak leaves to his Knights Cross and Heinemann was presented the Knights Cross and a promotion to Leutnant on April 17, 1945, truly two of the most outstanding Luftwaffe Nachtjäger during the war.

and this leads us now into Heinz Rokkers last mission on the same evening


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 26, 2005)

NIce info Erich, interesting stuff.


----------



## Erich (Oct 26, 2005)

sticking with info on I./NJG 2 for the time being in 1945, it appears that one Ju 88G-6 was confirmed as shot down within the gruppe.

Ju 88G-6 of 3./NJG 2 flown by Leutnant Straßner, Fw. Hahn and Unteroffizier Pareidt on February 1, 1945, during an operational engagement. The three crewmembers bailed out safely


----------



## Erich (Oct 28, 2005)

Getns still going through his letters and the story behind the Mossie kill and the night in general which is in German......

anyone want to add two ¢ on the Mossie night fighter please do until I get this info on Heionz up and running

≈ E ≈


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 28, 2005)

In Willi Reschkes' book "301/302 Wilde Sau" there is an aerial Victories chart listed in alph order... 

There is not one single claim for a Mossie from any of these Sau Riders....


----------



## Erich (Oct 28, 2005)

Correcto meine freund ! only in JG 300 using the Bf 109G variants

A little notation: not all of JG 301/302's victories are listed in W. Reschke's book.

Gents am getting a little side tracked here but have confirmed two kills of Hptm Becker flying a Ju 88G-6 on night of March 14/15, 1945 when he scored an unreal 9 victories all confirmed ! I have cross referenced two of them now and found one of the Lancasters shot down by the bordfünker and his MG 131 13mm weapon ande the Fortress. Karl shot down 2 Lancs and 1 Fortress III with it as the Ju 88G-6 did not have Schrägwaffen. Am offering the info to Dutch author Theo Boiten who I have mentioned in the past encompassing in his book for next fall over 1000 + German night pilots and their victories. the book will most undoubtedly be a monument to the German/RAF crews during the conflict. the March 14/15, 45 and Becker vs the RAF will cover several pages in length in the book. All I can say is it will be on the top of my "wish" listing for 2006.

≈ E


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 28, 2005)

> A little notation: not all of JG 301/302's victories are listed in W. Reschke's book.


Well that sucks...


----------



## Erich (Nov 3, 2005)

just a brief note for now............

before I put up Heinz Rökkers acct of his Mossie NF downing wanted to say I am going to be in correspondance soon with a 3./NJG 2 pilot who was shot down by a Mossie nf and hopeful to have his story up within a months time here : Johannes Straßner

by the way my avatar is the Wappenshield of NJG 100 and the siggy is a Ju 88G-6 one of about 30-40 a/c from the Langensalza factory toward wars end captured bu a US armored unit and later used by of all things ,,,,,,,, one of the US P-61 Black Widow squadrons for their own airfield


----------



## Erich (Nov 16, 2005)

From Chris Stuart, 2001

The evening sun sets low on the western horizon and shoots rays of light through dark clouds-- a sign for the experienced flier that the weather will worsen. For us, this is familiar. The British usually time their raids so their takeoff and landing conditions are favorable, whereas we German night fighters struggle with bad weather over our hunting grounds. That is exactly the case tonight.

After our meal in the officers' mess at approximately 18:00 hours, we head to the Gefechtsstand (operation theater) for a briefing. At first, the MET gives us the weather forecast for Holland, Belgium and Northern Germany, warning us of heavy thunderstorms, and he gives us special information for tonight regarding flak-defended areas, searchlight positions, radio frequencies and tonight's possible targets (set by the high command at the town of Stade, 60 miles west of Hamburg). Afterward, the crews retire to their readiness rooms, and the officers remain in the operation theater, where the ground-control officers-- and many radar girls-wait for the enemy bombers to appear on their screens.

Now begins a time of increasing nervous tension. In a way, the attackers are better off, as they have definite orders when to take off, where to fly, etc. The defenders have to wait, wait and wait! And this tension rises to a peak and then fades again. The telephone rings; but the call is unimportant.
Continue article
Advertisement
tranqulty_300x250_SBSRGR

To understand the pressure we live with at this stage of the War, consider the following facts: most of us are still flying the Bf 110, which is heavily armed but slow. It is absolutely readiness for experienced crews only]. It applies only to ObIt. Schmidt and me. (From the summer of 1944, there was an alarming shortage of fuel, and under doubtful weather conditions, we did not expect the younger crews to have any success.)

My crew, Bordfunker (wireless/radar operator) "Schani" Pinter [Austrian] and our so-called "third man" Emil Mathan have already arrived at the hangar by crew truck. The 1.Wart (first mechanic) has checked our plane (G9+ES), and it is ready for flight. We squeeze ourselves into the cockpit, fasten our parachutes and seatbelts and wait for further orders. Fortunately, the rain has stopped and the thunderstorms have moved away to the east. Will we be ordered to take off? Or is this just another false alarm?

Suddenly, at 00:13 hours, the sleeping airfield comes to life! A white flash rises into the sky to indicate "Startbefehl" (our order to take off). At the same time, the loudspeaker in the hangar announces the order: "Startbefehl each Funkfeuer Quelle" (takeoff to radio beacon Quelle [fountain]-the code word for the letter "Q," situated 150 miles west of Hamburg). My technician closes the roof of the canopy; I start the engines. Taxiing to the departure point must be done in absolute darkness; there are no identification lights or taxiway markings. In case intruders are patrolling the area, we sometimes have to take off without the runway's being lit by the flare path. In such a case, a dim light at the end of the runway guides us in the proper direction.

The first one airborne is ObIt. Schmidt. When I see the sparks coming from his exhaust pipes, I know he is away and it is my turn. When I push the throttles forward, my plane immediately roars down the runway and into the night. I am surrounded by absolute darkness. We are in clouds with our course set for 70 degrees; we climb at full power and are shaken by the ever increasing storm clouds around us. Lightning occasionally illuminates the cockpit in a ghostly, pale color. All of a sudden, a mauve light flickers on our aerials and propeller tips-"Elmsfeuer."

My "ES" becomes increasingly difficult to fly as the grip of ice takes over, and we are tossed like a toy by the forces of nature. Shaken up and down, I am concerned as we slowly inferior in every way to the Mosquito, and it is sometimes slower than the four-engine Lancasters without their bomb load. The Heinkel He 219, equal to the Mosquito, is supplied to only 20 to 30 crews. Far superior to all Allied aircraft is the new, jet-powered Arado 234. (A night-fighter version of the Arado was proposed, but it came too late and was used only as a reconnaissance aircraft at altitudes of over 30,000 feet during the last three months of the War.) Furthermore, radio communication and radar (ground/air, board/board and the airborne radar) are often completely jammed by specially equipped RAF bombers that fly in formations.

To overcome the jamming, the German controllers sometimes use other methods to pass information about the anticipated target to pilots. Radio stations transmit music typical of the area that the controllers thought were to be bombed. Example: Viennese waltzes if Austria (then Germany) was suspected; shanties for Hamburg; carnival songs for the Rhineland; typical Bavarian melodies for Munich and operettas from well-known Berlin composers for Berlin.

Thus, little information about the bomber formation's course, altitude or main target (there are always diversionary raids) is available to us. Furthermore, the increasing effective action of the Mosquito intruders, with their superior radar and flying performance-coupled with poor weather and inexperienced crews-contribute to many of our losses. All this while facing defeat within the foreseeable future! In spite of it all, the crews' morale remains high; nobody speaks about the terrible end. Everybody secretly hopes for the "wonder weapons" promised by our political leaders.

We do not hate the British or the Americans; these boys are doing their duty just as we are. Neither side can change the political situation, so we have to carry on with our job to prevent as many Allied bombers as possible from destroying our cities and killing our people.

24:00 hours

We are still waiting. The weather has deteriorated; from time to time, lightning flashes light up the night and are followed by thunder and heavy rain. Suddenly, the phone rings again. ObIt. Schmidt answers it. Immediately we can see from his face that something is happening. "Erhohte Bereitschaft!" [readiness]. We quickly put on our flight suits and wait for the order to rush to our aircraft in the hangars. A couple of minutes later, the order comes through: "Sitzbereitschaft fur Spitzenbesatzungen" [cockpit start to lose altitude. After several agonizing minutes, we break free into a shaft of clear air. The ice loosens its grip, slips away, and we are now safe and can fly freely again to 21,000 feet. The hunt begins.

When we reach radio beacon "Queue,' the first RAF pathfinders are dropping their target indicators. We see cascades of red, green and white flares marking the aiming point. They light up the area and descend slowly on little parachutes. We call them "Christbaume' (Christmas trees). From now on, it doesn't take long for the terrible spectacle to begin! Thirty miles away, we can see the first explosions on the ground in Hamburg, and they're followed by widespread fires. These eventually combine into one enormous fire that covers entire suburbs with a disastrous firestorm. The updraft brings wind velocities of 120mph, and the firestorm consumes everything in its path; there is no chance at all!

Soon, we see the first kills by night fighters and flak: Lancasters, Halifaxes and our own comrades go down as orange colored torches, descending in steep dives to explode on impact with the ground. We see parachutes of the lucky men who manage to bail out; there are not many! Searchlights move all over the night sky, looking like pale arms of an octopus in search of prey. In addition, explosions of antiaircraft shells at all altitudes make life difficult for friend and foe! Over the city are many aircraft from both sides, and there are collisions.

Altogether, it is an inferno-hell for everybody. We night fighters can easily be seen by enemy bombers' gunners and by the marauding British night fighters, and we are hit by our own flak. We have to be cautious to avoid colliding with other aircraft, as all around us are at least 50 to 80 four-engine bombers and a similar number of night fighters. Bombs, incendiaries and target indicators fall between us. The fires send up their light to 20,000 feet. It is as bright as day; you could read a newspaper! The smell of smoke fills our cockpit.


----------



## Erich (Nov 16, 2005)

While the raid is in full swing, I see a Halifax and follow it into the darkness. I slowly close into position under it so I can use my "Schrage Musik": two, 20mm MG/FF upward-firing cannon. I am almost in firing position when a nearby aircraft catches fire and lights up the sky-for me, a dangerous situation, so I quickly move to the darker side and wait. After a couple of minutes, I close in again and aim between its two port engines where the fuel tanks are. A short burst of cannon fire causes a small bluish flame, but the bomber immediately goes into a steep dive and crashes in an explosion 20 miles west of Hamburg. We see two of the crew bail out.

Later, Schani has a blip on his cathode-ray tube; he takes over and guides me. "Marie 800 [distance 800 meters], a bit higher, left, left, straight now, Marie 500, straight ahead, a bit higher and to the right, now you should be able to see him!" And so it is another Halifax flying home, straight and level, no evasive actions. Again I close into the same position and fire! This time, the tanks in the right wing immediately catch fire, which quickly extends along the fuselage to behind the tail. We can clearly recognize the code letters "W-BM" on the camouflage-colored Halifax. The burning aircraft flies onward for another two minutes, and again, only two crewmen bail out. Eventually, as if in agony, the Halifax turns slowly upside down and falls to the ground. It crashes at 01:28 hours.

We are right in the middle of the returning bomber formation and look for our next victim. Again, Schani sees a blip on his screen, so we start the chase for the third time, however, we are having trouble closing the distance. I give my "ES" full power. There are some Polar lights in the north that enable me to see the bomber quite early: another Halifax, recognizable by its bluish exhaust glow (the Lancaster's exhaust glow looks orange). This time, I close in from astern and then give a burst from my two, forward-firing Mk 108 30mm cannon. Its right wing immediately bursts into flames, and I notice the code "EQ-P." The Halifax inclines to the left and slowly goes down.

Suddenly, something unexpected happens: diving away, the brave British rear gunner gives me a burst from his four Brownings, and my plane is hit in the right engine, which immediately catches fire. To watch the bomber go down, I had to lower my left wing, and that saved my life. The bullets pass over my head and into my right engine. While the burning Halifax goes down [at 01:36 hours], I try to extinguish the fire. Unlike the British, we have no fire extinguishers. The only means of putting out the fire is a steep dive with a strong relative wind that we hope will extinguish the flames. Thank God, it works!

Our altitude is now 6,000 feet; I shut down the engine and manage to feather the propeller. Only now do we realize that our chase has brought us far out over the North Sea. We have no Mae Wests nor dinghies and only one engine left to take us home! To fly with one engine is not usually a problem for the Bf 110, as long as we don't have to climb. I set a heading of 180 degrees to reach the Dutch coast to the south, and I'm very cautious to avoid the heavy flak-defended areas around Bremen and Bremerhaven on one side and the East Frisian Islands on the other side on my return flight.

Schani calls the tower at Twente, still 150 miles away. Luckily, they hear us, faintly, but they warn us that an intruder Mosquito is patrolling the area. This could be fatal for us, but I must take the chance, as no airfields are nearby with a runway long enough to allow a single-engine landing by night; the only other suitable airfields Leeuwarden (Holland) and Wittmundhaven are fogged in. When the intruders are on patrol, all lights on the airfield are dimmed to an absolute minimum. But because of our emergency, these restrictions are now ignored and all help is given to us. The runway is fully lit, and the flak searchlights form a "dome" that is visible for quite a distance as a white patch on top of the clouds. This gives us absolute priority for communications and landing, and the fire brigades and medical personnel are prepared to rush to the site of a crash.

By now, we are flying at 5,000 feet, partly in the clouds and with a speed of only 180mph. It is not at all easy because our artificial horizon is out of order; the dead engine powered it. Again, we are lucky, as after about 45 minutes, the tower radios that the Mosquito has left the area. I prepare for an instrument landing, and my only remaining problem-to avoid an additional circuit-is to meet the main beam of our ILS at a point and altitude at which we usually begin our approach. To fly another circuit with the Bf 110 at low altitude and one engine is not a good idea!

Fortunately, I manage to hit the main beam at the favorable point of 600 feet. Still in the clouds, I lower the flaps and landing gear. At 150 feet, I break free of the clouds and realize that I am short of the runway. So I start the right engine again, but it immediately starts to shoot sparks and flames, so I turn it off; it does, however, give me the necessary few meters I need to reach the airfield and cross the 200 yards to the runway, where we land safely. Our blood pressures go back to normal!

Now, 56 years later, I sit in Hamburg Airport on a warm summer evening after thunderstorms have passed over the city. I watch as airliners take off and follow the traffic with the tower over the intercom. My memories go back to a time when Lancasters and Halifaxes took off from their airfields in England to bring their deadly loads to Germany. Fortunately, this belongs in the past; the Allies and Germans have become partners and, in many cases, even friends. But we should not forget to honor the brave airmen on both sides, who did their duties and were not as lucky to survive as we were.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 16, 2005)

that's quite a story......


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 16, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that's quite a story......


It is. Good stuff Erich.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 17, 2005)

Indeed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2005)

WOW!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 17, 2005)

Excellent reading and a good nights sortie....


----------



## Erich (Nov 17, 2005)

yes not quite a Ju 88 vs Mossie bit but still quite good and a keeper to copy down for the files ....


----------



## evangilder (Nov 17, 2005)

Great stuff!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 17, 2005)

Ill tell ya, u want to read some good stuff, get that JG 300 Vol I... Some of the interviews/stories are unreal...


----------



## Erich (Nov 17, 2005)

yes you will find anti-Moskito missions by staffel 10.(N)/JG 300 flown from August 44 onward till November 15th 44 before transfer into II./NJG 11 actually the formation of it with JG 300 cadre. The JG 300 volume 1 somewhat gives credit to Kurt Welters downing of Mossies on a pretty consistant basis flying the 109 but I am in doubt.

but don't be fooled by my comments, the volume is one of the best air war histories written.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 17, 2005)

Just entering the debate between the two aircraft and not looking back on anything anyone said previous to this post, i would think the mossie would be the obvious victor. While the Ju-88 was a simply outstanding aircraft, stable, fast enough for what it was designed for, could carry good enough payload with a good enough range. But when i look at the mosquito, i see something lightning quick, adaptable to bomber, fighter, night fighter, intruder, attack, recon, ECM, many things that just couldnt be done as effectively as compared to the Ju-88. Granted i love the Ju-88, and i think its a wonderful machine, but id rather fly the mossie, feeling safer with that extra speed.


----------



## v2 (Nov 20, 2005)

Hi,
On 25th September 1943, over Bay of Biscay, four crews from 307th(Polish) Sqn clashed with eight Ju 88Cs from 15./KG 40. Polish crews claimed 2-2-1, with Mosquito VI HJ658 lost ( RAF crew - F/Sgt. L.J. Loundes and F/Sgt. I. Cotton was KIA).

In some old Polish book I found info, that seven of eight Ju 88Cs never returned from this mission. So, maybe Anyone has info about real V./KG 40 losses on that day ?


----------



## Erich (Nov 20, 2005)

good ! glad to see more responders on this thread. more research is always needed .............


----------



## v2 (Nov 20, 2005)

Thank's Erich


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Good info from everyone.

I look at the Ju-88 and the Mossie really as too different breeds of aircraft. Both were great aircraft. The Ju-88 was for me simply just a marvelous aircraft. She was so versatile and for that reason is one of my favorite aircraft. The Mossie though as an aircraft was a better plane.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 24, 2005)

I also love the Ju-88. It looked in my opinion much better than the mossie, i mean the mossie was far from ugly, it was good looking too, but i always thought german aircraft had some sort of menacing look to them ( i like the menacing look, more than smooth curves and streamlining). I saw a picture of an early nightfighter Ju-88, still with the glazed nose, but with machine guns, i believe some Mg-17s, though they could have been MG FF cannon, poking out in places where the glazing was removed, though most of it was still glazed. I fell in love with the aircraft, and followed it through its evolution as bomber and nightfighter. I like the mosquito, but ill always have a place in my heart for the Ju-88, regardless of which one may have been better.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 24, 2005)

That story about the mission at night reminded me of a book about the night aces of world war two on the german side. "The Other Battle, Luftwaffe Night aces vesus bomber command" by Peter Hinchliffe is a very good book for anyone who likes to read about the night missions of aircraft, the development of tactics on both sides, the use of window and other countermeasures, the Kamhuber line, wilde sau, the evolution of radar for both the british and the germans, aircraft evolution, and relationships between funker and pilot. An exceptional book for anyone who might be interested.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2005)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> I also love the Ju-88. It looked in my opinion much better than the mossie, i mean the mossie was far from ugly, it was good looking too, but i always thought german aircraft had some sort of menacing look to them ( i like the menacing look, more than smooth curves and streamlining). I saw a picture of an early nightfighter Ju-88, still with the glazed nose, but with machine guns, i believe some Mg-17s, though they could have been MG FF cannon, poking out in places where the glazing was removed, though most of it was still glazed. I fell in love with the aircraft, and followed it through its evolution as bomber and nightfighter. I like the mosquito, but ill always have a place in my heart for the Ju-88, regardless of which one may have been better.



I agree.


----------



## GregP (Nov 25, 2005)

Either way, it apprears we are talking about a few kills here and there. Certainly not enough to affect the outcome of a bombing offensive.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2005)

HUH?


----------



## Erich (Nov 26, 2005)

Greg what are U talking about ? fighter vs fighter in this thread although I threw some German nf agasint RAF bomber storeis in to make the thread interesting. Still await some stuff from Germany to post here ....


----------



## Erich (Nov 26, 2005)

well since the vaunted Mossie XIX and XXX did fly above and forward of the RAF bombers to proteect the heavies from the German Luftwaffe nf forcec, thought I would put in a German report of the pathfinder activites that gave the GErman nf's such a hard time in disposing. this is from an earlier era, aka march/april of 44 and the doc at one time was classified as secret, not any more obviously as it is apparent in the KEW archivs in England and elsewhere in in the captured document files ::

British Pathfinder Operations 

Issued by Luftwaffenfuhrungsstab Ic/Fremde

Luftwaffen West

The success of a large-scale night raid by the RAF is in increasing measure dependent on the conscientious flying of the Pathfinder crews. The frictionless functioning of the attack is only possible when the turning points on the inward and courses, as well as the target itself, are properly marked. Lately, these attacks have been compressed into about 4 minutes for each wave averaging 120-150 aircraft

Dense and high reaching clouds, which hide the sky markers over the target, and exceptionally strong winds which blow the markers away quickly, represent an unpredictable barrier to Pathfinder operations and can often appreciably decrease the efficiency of an attack.

Another reason for the failure of a raid may lie in the partial failure of the first Pathfinders, the 'Initial Markers', to arrive, since experience has shown that succeeding Pathfinders, in spite of being equipped with H2S and blind marking equipment, have allowed themselves to be influenced, to a certain extent, by the Initial Markers.

A: DEVELOPMENT

1. The concentrated large-scale RAF raid on Cologne on 30/31 May 1942, during a full moon night and with an alleged strength of more than 900 aircraft, was the first attempt to imitate the 'Focal Point' raids initiated by the German Air Force during this strategic air war against the British Isles during the years 1940 and 1941.

The lessons taught by this first large-scale raid, the increasingly high losses and the fact that the Hyperbola (Gee) navigation system could only be used in certain conditions, forced the AOC-in-C of of Bomber Command to develop new systems of attack.

Using the German system of 'Illuminators' and 'Fire Raisers' as a model, the use of Pathfinders was developed towards the middle of August 1942, in order to bring on to the target all the aircraft, some with inexperienced, others with only medium-trained crews, and to allow the dropping of the bombs without loss of time. 

2. Air Vice-Marshall BENNET, at present still in command of these special units, was appointed Chief of the Pathfinder formations.

This 35 year old Australian - known as one of the most resourceful officers of the RAF - had distinguished himself as long ago as 1938 by a record long-range flight to South Africa in a four- engined seaplane which was launched in the air from a Sunderland flying boat (composite aircraft). In 1940 BENNET established the Transatlantic Ferry Command with aircraft of the Hudson type. As an example of his personal operational capabilities, an attack may be cited which he made on the German Fleet base at Trondheim.

BENNET's appointment as Commander of the Pathfinder Formations is also based on the fact that he has written two standard books on astro-navigation. 

3. The use of Pathfinders in the first large-scale raids was comparatively primitive. Several particularly experienced crews were sent out first as Fire Raisers ahead of the Main Bomber Force and, in order to facilitate and ensure the location of the target, moonlit nights were especially favoured.

Shortly after the formation of these Pathfinder groups, however, the principle of raids during moonlit nights was dropped and raids in dark cloudless periods began to take place.

BENNET strove to render the raids independent of the weather and at the same time to make it easier for the less experienced crews to locate the target. 

4. At first there were only four bomber squadrons, equipped with Stirlings, Halifaxes, Lancasters and Wellingtons, and in January 1943 these units were organised into No 8 Bomber Group, the Pathfinder Group.

The grouping of the Pathfinders into a Bomber Group of their own made it possible to standardise the equipment and the training, to put new ideas into operation and to immediately evaluate all experiences.

During the course of 1943, the number of Pathfinder squadrons was increased to meet the increased demands, and among others, several Mosquito squadrons were detailed to the Pathfinder Group. 

B: ORGANISATION AND EQUIPMENT

I: Organisation and Aircraft Types

1. Eighth Bomber Group at present consists: Five Lancaster squadrons, one Halifax squadron, four Mosquito squadrons (including two special bomber squadrons with 'Bumerang' [Oboe] equipment) and one Mosquito Met Flight.

For further information concerning the organisation of these units, see 'Blue Book Series', Book 1: The British Heavy Bomber Squadron. 

2. In addition to the normal navigational aids (see also 'Blue Book Series', Book 7: British Navigation Systems) the aircraft carry the following special equipment:

a) Four-engined aircraft (Lancaster and Halifax):

Rotterdam (H2S) for location of target and bombing without ground visibility;

Hyperbola navigation instrument (Gee);

Identification Friend-Foe (IFF); acoustic night-fighter warning instrument 'Monica';

visual night-fighter warning instrument (Cathode ray oscilloscope) 'Fish Pond'

provision for bomb-release in the cabin as well as in the navigation room. 

b) Twin-engined aircraft (Mosquito)

Hyperbola navigation instrument (Gee);

special equipment according to mission, for example 'Bumerang' (Oboe)

the existence of Mosquitos equipped with H2S have not as yet been definitely established. According to latest information, this special equipment does not yet seem to have been installed in the Mosquito. 

II: Personnel

1. The crews are no longer composed mainly of volunteers as was formerly the case. Owing to the great demand and the heavy losses, crews are either posted to Pathfinder units immediately after completing their training, or are transferred from ordinary bomber squadrons. As in the past, however, special promotion and the Golden Eagle badge are big inducements to the crews.

At first Pathfinder crews had to commit themselves to 60 operational flights, but due to this high number there were insufficient volunteers, and the figure was decreased to 45.

After transfer to a Pathfinder squadron, a certain probationary period is undergone. The crews are not appointed Pathfinders and awarded the Golden Eagle until they have proved themselves capable of fulfilling the equipments by flying several operations (about 14) over Germany. Before the award of the Golden Eagle each member of the crew has to pass a special examination to show that he is fully capable, of performing two functions on board, for example gunner and mechanic, or mechanic and bomb-aimer, etc. 

2. There is a special Pathfinder school (NTU Upwood Special School). All new crews, however, are sent on a special navigational course lasting 8-14 days at a Navigation Training Unit, where particularly experienced instructors, who have already completed their pathfinder tours, train the crews in the operation of the special equipment and put final polish on their already good navigational training.

New Pathfinder crews fly training flights over Great Britain. These are usually made southwest from the Cambridge area, course being set for the Isle of Man. On the return flight, a large city, such as Birmingham or Manchester is approached, dummy bombing using H2S is carried out, and target photographs are brought back to the home base. Flights of this kind are flown to a strict time schedule, just as in the case of a large-scale raid on Germany or the Occupied Western Territories, and are taken into consideration in the assessment of the crews as Pathfinders. If, on several occasions the schedule is not adhered to, the crew is transferred to an ordinary bomber squadron.

C: PATHFINDER OPERATIONS

I:General

The operational tactics of the Pathfinders have been under constant development ever since the earliest days, and even now cannot be considered as firmly established or completed. New methods of target location and marking, as well as extensive deceptive and diversionary measures against German defences are evident in almost ever operation.

Whereas the attacks of the British heavy bombers during the years 19421-43 lasted over an hour , the duration of the attack has been progressively shortened so that today, a raid of 800-900 aircraft is compressed into 20 minutes at the most. According to captured enemy information, the plan for the raid on Berlin on 15/16 February 1944 called for about 900 aircraft in five waves of 4 minutes each.

In spite of the increased danger of collision or of dropping bombs on other aircraft which must be taken into account, the aim has been achieved of allowing the German defences, the Commands as well as the defence weapons themselves, only a fraction of the time available to them during raids in the past.

The realisation of these aims was made possible by the conscientious work of the Pathfinder group and by the high training standard (especially regarding navigation) of the crews.

The markers over the approach and withdrawal courses serve as navigational aids for all aircraft and above all they help them to keep to the exact schedule of tines and positions along the briefed course. Over the target, the markers of the Pathfinders enable all aircraft to bomb accurately without loss of time. 

II: Markers

Up to date, the following markers have been identified:

TARGET MARKERS

a) Ground Markers: also called cascade bombs, are red, green and yellow. Weather conditions govern the setting of the barometric fuse, whereby the Ground Marker container is detonated at a height varying from 800 to 5,000 metres, thereby releasing 60 flares which fall burning and burn out of the ground.

Ground markers are mainly dropped in the target area, but they are also sometimes used as Route Markers. Ground Markers are also dropped in 10/10ths cloud in order to illuminate the cloud base from below. When the clouds are thin, the crew can see the glare without difficulty. The average duration of burning of a Ground Marker is 3-4 minutes. 

b) Sky Markers: parachute flares, of which several are usually placed simultaneously. As a rule, the flares used are red ones from which, at regular intervals, quick-burning green flares ('dripping green stars') drop out.

Besides these, green Sky Markers with red stars asn , although comparatively seldon, green Sky Markers with yellow stars are also used.

The bomb aimers are for the most part briefed to drop their bombs into the middle of a group od Sky Markers. This corrects the opinion held until now that two sky markers are set, one to indicate the point of bomb release and the other to indicate the target. 

c) White and Yellowish Flares: used chiefly to illuminate a target. They are also sometimes used as dummy markers.

During raids in the autumn of 1943, the enemy attempted to mark a target approach corridor by setting numerous flares. It may be assumed that he dropped this system because of the heavy losses inflicted by German single-engined fighters in the target area.

ROUTE MARKERS

a) As Track Markers: or Indicators, Sky Markers are used in 10/10ths cloud.

b) Ground Markers: (Spotfires) are red, green or yellow; red and yellow are mainly used. A ground marker does not split up into different traces, but burns with a single bright light for from 3-8 minutes.

NEW KINDS OF MARKERS (as yet not clearly identified)

The enemy has often tried to introduce new kinds of markers with varying lighting effects:

a) Among others, a quick-falling flare bomb was observed lately. After it hit the ground, 1 90 metre high column of sparks was observed, which slowly descended in many colours. Confirmation, however, is not yet available.

b) To designate the beginning and the end of the attack, a large reddish-yellow 'Fireball' has often been observed. Red flares fall from the Fireball and at low heights these again split up into green stars. The light intensity of these bombs is unusually high.

c) The so-called red 'Multi-Flashes' are apparently used as Route Markers,. They have been observed sparkling to the ground at intervals of 2-3 seconds.

d) The enemy seem to have stopped using enormous 1,800 kg size flare bombs. The reason for this could not be determined.

III: Execution of Pathfinder Operations

DIVIDING OF TH PATHFINDER CREWS

a) At present, Pathfinder crews are divided into the following categories:Blind Markers, Blind Backers-up, Visual Backers-up, Visual Markers, Supporters - Pathfinder Main Force.

About 15% of the bombers used for a large-scale operation are Pathfinders. For example, out of a strength of 900 aircraft, 120 would be Pathfinders, of which about 20 to 25 would be Blind Markers, 30 to 45 would be Blind and Visual Backers-up and 60 to 70 would be Pathfinder Main Force.

b) Blind Markers: It is the duty of the Blind Markers to locate the target using H2S and to set Ground or Sky Markers, or both, according to weather conditions, at zero hour minus 2 to 5 minutes.

The Blind Marker crew are responsible for the success or the failure of the raid. They are more strictly bound to the time schedule than all the other aircraft taking part in the raid. They are not allowed to drop their markers if the schedule is deviated from by more than one or two minutes, or if the instruments fail, or fail to indicate accurately. In such cases the Blind Marker aircraft automatically becomes part of the Pathfinder Main Force and must drop its HE bomb load exactly at zero hour.

With smaller targets, it is the duty of the Blind Markers to set flares over the target area, in order to illuminate it.

Another duty of good Blind Marker crews during the initial stages of the attack is not only to set new markers, but also to re-centre the attack. Experience has shown that the first aircraft of the Main Force drop their bombs near the Markers but that succeeding aircraft tend drop them short of the target area during the progress of the attack. It is the duty of the Blind Markers detailed for this purpose to bring the bombing back to the original target by resetting the Markers past the first aiming point in the direction of withdrawal.

For several months past, the Blind Markers have had a further duty, In several operations it was repeatedly shown that errors in the navigation of the Main Force occurred owing to inaccurate wind forecasts. Experienced Pathfinders were therefore instructed to transmit their established wind calculations to England by W/T. Each Group picks up these reports and transmits them every half-hour to the airborne bombers.

c) Blind Backers-Up: The duties of the Blind Backers-up are similar to those of the Blind Markers, except that they fly in the bomber stream. Thus, they drop their Markers during the attack, also in accordance with a strict previously laid down time schedule. Blind Backers-up are used to set Ground Markers and, above all, Sky Markers, which are always renewed by means of H2S and never visually.

d) Visual Backers-Up: In order to give new Pathfinder crews a chance to gain experience for future operations as Visual or Blind Markers, they are allowed to set the new Markers visually; these, however are always of a different colour. Theoretically, these Markers should be on, or very near, to the original Markers, but as in practice this is very seldom the case, the impression given is that of the target being framed by markers. The bomb-aimers of the succeeding bombers are therefore briefed to release their bombs in the centre of the markers dropped by the Backers-up.

e) Visual Markers: An attack on a small or pin-point target (definite industrial installations, dockyards, etc) necessitates still more accurate marking than is possible by the Blind Markers. The Visual Markers, therefore, locate the target visually from medium height, sometimes from as low as 1,500 metres, and then release their Ground Markers on the centre of the target, in order to concentrate the attack of the high-flying bombers. The Visual Markers are aided by the illumination of the target area aided by several Blind Markers (Newhaven attack).

f) Supporters: New crews who come from training units or other squadrons and who are to be trained as Pathfinders, fly their first operations in the Pathfinder Main Force. They carry only mines or HE bombs, arrive exactly at zero hour and try, at the first concentric bombing, to create conditions necessary to allow the incendiary bombs of the succeeding waves to take full effect. 

ROUTE MARKERS

Route Markers are set buy good Blind Marker crews and are renewed during the approach of the Bomber Stream by further good Blind Marker crews. Ground Markers (Spotfires) are sometimes set visually, and sometimes by instruments, but Sky Markers used as Track Markers or Indicators are set only by means of H2S.

The route of approach and withdrawal are generally identified by three Markers set at especially prominent points or turning points. The colours of these markers for any single night raid are usually the same: either red, green, yellow or white. It has often been observed that the Route Markers do not always lie exactly on course. They are set somewhat to one side so that the approaching bombers are not unnecessarily exposed to the danger of German night-fighters. 

TARGET MARKERS

The Target Markers will differ according to weather conditions. More Sky or Ground Markers are set, according to the visibility and cloud conditions prevailing. Up to date, the following methods of attack and target marking have been recognised:

a) The 'Parramatta' attack under a clear sky and with good visibilty. Ground Markers are used only.

b) The 'Wanganui' attack with 8-10/10ths cloud cover. Sky Markers only.

c) The 'Musical Parramatta' attack with 5-8/10ths cloud cover. Mainly Ground Markers, but some Sky Markers.

d) The 'Newhaven' attack, in which the target area is illuminated by means of parachute flares, coupled with several Ground Markers.

e) The 'Musical Wanganui' attack with 8-10/10ths cloud cover. Mainly Sky Markers, but some Ground Markers. This system of target marking has been used to a great extent lately during bad-weather operations. 

DROPPING THE MARKERS

The setting of the Pathfinder Markers requires a great deal of experience. For this reason, training flights with Markers of all kinds are often carried out over Great Britain, serving for practical experiments with flares as well as for training purposes.

When the target area is already illuminated by previously dropped flares, the Ground Markers are released visually by means of the ordinary bomb-sight. In cases where 10/10ths cloud or dark conditions are found over the target area, H2S is used for dropping all Markers.

A great deal of experience is required for the setting of Blind Markers. Close co-operation between the navigator and the H2S operator (see 'Blue Book Series', Book 7: British Navigations Systems for the difference between the two) who sit side by side in the navigation room, is the first essential for the precise setting of Markers by means of H2S. Above all, drift must be calculated before the Markers are set, so that the Main attacking force has only to navigate on the Markers themselves. 

NAVIGATION

The basis for all Pathfinder navigation is dead reckoning, and all other systems are only aids to check and supplement this. H2S equipment is valueless without dead reckoning because the ground is not shown on the cathode ray tube as it is on a map.

To facilitate the location of the target, an auxiliary target, which experience shows to give a clear picture on the cathode ray tube, is given during briefing. This auxiliary target should be as close to the actual as possible, in order to eliminate all sources of error. Cities, large lakes, or sometimes even coastline features are used as auxiliary targets.

The course and the time of flight from the auxiliary target to the actual target are calculated in advance, taking the wind into consideration. The H2S operator then knows that the main target will appear on the screen a given number of seconds after the auxiliary target has been identified. 

MOSQUITO PATHFINDER OPERATIONS

The Mosquito aircraft have special duties as Pathfinders, concerning which the following information is available:

a) Setting Ordinary Markers: 15 to 20 minutes before the beginning of the actual attack, in conjunction with other Lancaster Pathfinders, over an auxiliary target.

b) Setting Dummy Markers: along the coast and at other places to indicate a false course and a false target.

c) Dropping so-called 'Fighter Flares': these are imitations of the white and yellow flares dropped by German flare-carrying aircraft, to attract and divert German night-fighters.

d) Dropping 'Window' from great heights: this is so timed, after taking wind conditions into consideration, that a cloud of Window will be over the target when the first four-engined Pathfinders get there. This is made necessary by the fact that the target must be approached in straight and level flight, without evasive action, in order to get a good H2S picture. It is supposed to eliminate to a great extent aimed (radar) fire by the Flak.

e) Release of Single HE Bombs: 20 to 30 minutes after the main attack and observation of the results of the main attack.

f) Identification of pin-point targets: for succeeding Mosquito waves by setting Ground Markers with the aid of 'Bumerang' (Oboe). The succeeding Mosquitos then drop their bombs visually on the marked target.

D:CONCLUSIONS

1. Strong criticism from amongst their own units was at first levelled against the British Pathfinder operations, but they were able to prevail because of the successes achieved during the years 1943/44.

2. The original assumption that the majority of bomber crews would be less careful in their navigation once they became used to the help of the Pathfinders, and that therefore the total efficiency and success of raids would diminish, has hitherto not been confirmed. The navigational training and equipment of the ordinary British bomber crews has also been improved.

3. The operational tactics of the Pathfinders cannot be considered as complete even today. There are, in particular, continual changes of all markers and marking systems.

4. The trend of development will be towards making possible on one and the same night two or more large raids on the present scale, each with the usual Pathfinder accompaniment. 

Distribution:

Units of the Rdl an Obdl, Luftflotten down to operational Gruppen,Flakabteilungen an Ln Regiments, ALL German night fighter gruppen as well as Ju 88 C illumination units; NJG 7 

# 61008 Secret Ic/ Foreign Air Forces; A/Evaluation West


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 26, 2005)

Good post Erich, really interesting stuff.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2005)

yeah a good read, allot of interesting stuff in there..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2005)

Yes good posting, I enjoyed reading that.


----------



## Erich (Nov 27, 2005)

well it should be saved as it very couold be the best description although it is an account from the 'other side' written. RAF sources in text form have been rather brief


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2005)

yes i think the fact it's from the German perspective makes it even more interesting........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2005)

Agreed


----------



## Erich (Nov 28, 2005)

a little something for you guys to check out. this is a special map done up for useage by the Bordfünker und Bordmechanik from the spring of 1945. Showing the beacons and routes to other beacons and towns inclusive of some of the airfields. Gütersloh was the base for II./NJG 4 and my friend and RK winner Herbert Rauh flying the Ju 88G-6, scored 3 kills on the raid to Chemnitz on 5/6 March 1945...........


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 28, 2005)

Awesome Erich, really interesting map.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2005)

Wow great map. Would love to have a hands on look at something like that.


----------



## Erich (Nov 28, 2005)

here is the rest of the map shoping the eastern co-ordinates. Feel free to copy guys for your records as they are a just have...


----------



## Erich (Nov 28, 2005)

last one, a map plot used by ground control as well as a/c


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2005)

Thanks, I copied them.


----------



## Erich (Nov 28, 2005)

not sure if anyone here knows of the last several months tewsting on a positive note of Bernhardine, the tele-type printer installed in Ju 88G-6's and it was to be a standard fit in the future Me 262B-2a

A small number of FuS AN 724/725 "Bernhard" UKW-Richtstrahl-Drehfunkfeuer were already in operation. The system consisted of a very large antenna (please see below) which rotated twice a minute. The receiver in the aircraft (FuG 120 "Bernhardine") displayed the bearing to the station on a narrow paper strip. The system was now modified to transmit a very abbreviated Reportage Lage consisting of the height of the Bomber Stream, the position, heading and strength. The system worked on 30 -33,3 Mhz, was high powered and directional and hence very difficult to jam. By switching between 2 stations the radio operator could now obtain a fix every 1 minute and he did not have to work 2 radios to find a jamming free frequency.

The outfit was never jammed by the RAF. thanks to Michael of SES


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 28, 2005)

Really interesting stuff Erich, keep it coming.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2005)

Wow thats neat.


----------



## Erich (Nov 29, 2005)

if my line connection via my PC would work I would try and post what the Ju 88G-6 Teleprinter set-up looked like.....arg





oh screw it I'll be back later ........


----------



## Erich (Nov 29, 2005)

have a very interesting commentary of two kills or 1 kill and 1 damaged by one Mossie XXX crew over 2 Ju 88G-6's coming soon ..... next couple of days.

this will be used for a very special museum in the Czech republic that I have mentioned in the past. So Adler get you and yours over to the Erzegebirge ASAP 8) 

♪ ♫


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 29, 2005)

Erich, on the maps, what did the parachute symbols represent?


----------



## Erich (Nov 29, 2005)

not real sure but note the the cites where they are established, quite the huge content of Flak so this could easily be a no fly or no parachute zone if damged and having to bail....

yeah good luck to that 

♫


----------



## Erich (Nov 30, 2005)

the Gibb/Kendall report after action with their Mossie XXX nf. Obsltlt. Borchers was shot down and killed by a Mossie as well as Domminger and his crew of 3./NJG 5. Both German a/c were Ju 88G-6's. Borchers was a noted ace in NJG 5 with the Ritterkreuz. Thanks to friend S. Smith for the report.


----------



## v2 (Nov 30, 2005)

Extra Erich. 
J hope that you remember about my question?


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 30, 2005)

Good stuff as usual Erich, interesting read.


----------



## Erich (Nov 30, 2005)

v2 ask your question again please......it is lost in the shuffle


----------



## v2 (Nov 30, 2005)

Dear Erich,

On 25th September 1943, over Bay of Biscay, four crews from 307th(Polish) Sqn clashed with eight Ju 88Cs from 15./KG 40. Polish crews claimed 2-2-1, with Mosquito VI HJ658 lost ( RAF crew - F/Sgt. L.J. Loundes and F/Sgt. I. Cotton was KIA). 

In some old Polish book I found info, that seven of eight Ju 88Cs never returned from this mission. So, maybe You have info about real V./KG 40 losses on that day ?


----------



## Erich (Nov 30, 2005)

I have a freind that I believe has the KTB on the KG unit from Freiburg, I will send him a note

E


----------



## v2 (Nov 30, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2005)

Interesting, I am going to try and find out what the parachutes mean.


----------



## v2 (Dec 2, 2005)

Yes it's realy interesting. Now I read this book.


----------



## Erich (Dec 7, 2005)

14/15 February 1945 over Chemnitz, info provided by reseach friend Rod M, whom has a huge data base

(1) AIR 14/3745 - 'Bomber Command Interception Tactics Report Nr. 35/45'
13/14 February 1945
(report dated 18th Feb 45)

Claims:

100 Grp Mosquito (high level) - 2 x Me.110 claimed destroyed, N of Frankfurt

Bombers (Bohlen) - no claims noted (i.e. accepted). Attacks Combats:-
1. leaving Bohlen, 2200hrs, 1 attack by U/I E/A
2. leaving Bohlen, 2200hrs, 1 combat with S/E E/A
3. Homeward - east of Bonn, 2335hrs, attack by 1 T/E E/A
4. Homeward - over Belgium, 0035hrs, 1 U/I E/A was fired on

Bombers (Dresden 1st raid) - no claims noted (i.e. accepted). Attacks Combats:-
1. Outward - east of Dusseldorf, 2103hrs, 1 combat with E/A
2. Outward - east of Dusseldorf, 2110hrs, 1 combat with E/A
3. Outward - south of Madgeburg, 2145hrs, 1 attack by T/E E/A
4. Outward - south of Madgeburg, 2150hrs, 1 combat with suspected jet A/C (8 bombers reported seeing 4 x jet a/c between 1000E and Dresden, but no attacks or combats)
5. Target - 10 S/E T/E E/A sighted but no attacks or combats.

Bombers (Dresden 2nd raid) - no claims noted. Attacks Combats:-
1-4. Outward - near the Rhine, 0033-0059hrs, 3 attacks 1 combat with E/A
5. Outward - south of Schweinfurt, 0103hrs, 1 attack by E/A
6. Outward - ?, 0112hrs, 1 combat with Ju.88
7. Target - 0134hrs, 1 combat with S/E E/A
8. Target - 0142hrs, 1 attack by T/E E/A
9. Homeward - south-east of Stuttgart, 0238hrs, 1 attack by Ju.88
10. Homeward - south-east of Stuttgart, 0254hrs, 1 attack by Ju.88
11. Homeward - south of Stuttgart, 0313hrs, 1 combat with Ju.88
12. Homeward - west of Strasbourg, 0413hrs, 1 combat with T/E E/A

As can be seen, no claims were acknowledged by returning Bombers on this night.

(2) AIR 14/3745 - 'Bomber Command Interception Tactics Report Nr. 36/45'
14/15 February 1945
(report dated 20th Feb 45)

Claims:

100 Grp Mosquito (high level) - 1 x Ju.88 claimed destroyed NE Schwabsich Hall at 0009 hrs

Fighter Command Mosquito (high level) - 1 x He.219 claimed destroyed Se of Gottingen

Fighter Command Mosquito (low level) - 1 x T/E A/C claimed damaged on ground

Bombers (Rositz) - Claims: 1 x T/E A/C claimed probably destroyed over target between approx 2005-2008+ hrs
1 x T/A E/A claimed probably destroyed N. Frankfurt at 2112+ hrs.

Bombers (Chemnitz 1st attack - homeward route) - 1 x Ju88 claimed probably destroyed over target at 2117+ hrs

The Interception Tactics Reports were prepared by the RAF 'Operational Research Section' and matched closely the official 'night raid reports' issued by Bomber Command Headquarters. If a claim is not included in this or the final report then it is highlt unlikely that the claim was allowed. One reason for non-approval of claims would be if a bomber, inside a stream, made claims for aircraft destroyed or damaged but the claim went unwitnessed by all the bombers in the stream around them.

All returning RAF crews were required to report all sightings during debriefing and these reports were collated and analysed higher up the chain of command.

Thus, a Squadron ORB is NOT the best place to start when looking for verification of a claim...as the claim may have been denied after examination.

Although one suspected combat did take place, Bomber Command did not recognise ANY claim against a jet a/c on the night of either 13/14 or 14/15 February 1945.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 7, 2005)

Interesting stuff as usual Erich, keep it coming. Interesting that no claims for bombers where accepted this night.


----------



## Erich (Dec 7, 2005)

at least seen through Mossie NF eyes Gnomey. Actually there were German nf "kills" this night though I am finding this evenings raid quite confusing, part of the massive Thunderclap raids done by RAF bomber command and the heavies during the day from US 8th Air Force.

German Nachtjägers were more successful on "Gardening" preventitives / against RAF command performing mining duties and this is where I./NJG 3 and their Ju 88G-6's accounted for 6 RAF a/c: 5 halibag's and 1 lancaster confirmed. 3 German pilots accounted for the destruction of the RAF bombers.

NJG 5 and NJG 6 were the only other two NJG's making calims for RAF bombers over the Böhen and Chemnitz raid areas and it was lame at best with 8 claims, 1 a B-17 but a B-17 did not fly on this mission so ID was not obviously real good on the part of the German pilot whom by the way was and is a Ritterkreuz recipient, still living.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 10, 2005)

Truly exceptional postings Erich, I'm thoroughly engrossed !!....

One point, RAF 139 Sqn. began the first installation of H2S sets in Jan. 1944, after using GH since Oct. 1943. Bennett's intention was to groom 139 Sqn. to become the Marker Sqn. for the LNSF.....

Also, the Mosquito appears to have had the lowest loss-rate of the War, 8 Group losses alone, for example, being only 0.4%....not bad for an unarmed wooden bomber......

Unfortunately, I've only my Bomber Command stuff on hand at the moment, Fighter Command is out on loan - But I continue to be rivetted to your comments....Awesome !........


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 10, 2005)

I agree Gem...


----------



## Erich (Dec 16, 2005)

this time a 406th sqd report from September 43. Look how busy the German airfield was this night.....from the data of friend and researcher Mark Huxtable


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 17, 2005)

Interesting stuff Erich! Really interesting reading. That airfield saw a lot of action that night.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 17, 2005)

Heck of a night!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2005)

Damn I wish I access to documents like that. Really puts a new light on things. Its not the stuff that you find in books or what not.


----------



## Erich (Dec 19, 2005)

here is another one from my good friend M. Huxt. this for 5 of march 1945 on the Chemnitz raid. although a Ju 88G-6 destroyed it is quite unclear actually which one it was. Hauptmann Weigel flying a 88G-6, staffelkapitän of 11./NJG 6 and his crew slammed into a low hill but the demise is unclear, whether bad weather as the visibilty had closed in or was it due to the Mossie flown by the gent in the combat report present ?


----------



## v2 (Dec 19, 2005)

Excellent document Erich.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 19, 2005)

Interesting mystery there, Erich. The report seems like it was pretty clear though.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 19, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Interesting mystery there, Erich. The report seems like it was pretty clear though.


That is what it looks like, that it was shot down, still an interesting mystery as you say Eric. Very interesting stuff Erich.


----------



## Erich (Dec 19, 2005)

after further discussion this morning.....

Yes, you've got it right, though I don't see mention made of a hill - Weigel 
apparently crashed after clipping a tree. He believed he was being followed 
by a Mossie - apparently gunfire was heard, but the offiicial cause of the 
crash was "Bodenberuehrung", contact with the ground.

I've not found a report from any other 406 Sqn (or any other squadron, for 
that matter) which might indicate which mossie if any chased Weigel. See my 
other notes for comments re: locations, however from MacFadyen's description 
it doesn't seem he shot down Weigel's aircraft.

please note the last sentance. so with availble info or at least what there is the search continues. Research is fun eh ?


----------



## Erich (Dec 19, 2005)

more aon the strangeness of relatiosnships between kills and actually areas of downings. macFayden shot down a different Ju 88G-6 and not Weigel

The information for MacFadyen's claim is as below. Initial comments (re 
archives) again from (?). There's some info. on Hptm Weigel, however it doesn't look like he was attacked by 
MacFadyen. I've not found any info. regarding whether there was another 406 
Sqn aircraft which chased Weigel. In any case:

Based on original archive documents, not simply the books from Balss 
etc. - The Ju 88 G-6 2Z+BV Werknr. 621077 of 11./NJG6 L54936 was destroyed 
at Brünnstadtin, near Geroldshofen when it struck the ground. Pilot Hptm. 
Kurt Heinz Weigel, Radar Operator Ofw. Herbert Milord, Radio Operator Fw. 
Johannes Antoni, Observer/Gunner Uffz. Johannes Graf all KIA, initially 
buried in Geroldshofen, then removed to Gemünden. Earlier, Hptm Kurt Weigel returned 
to Germany in 1943 from Britain in a prisoner exchange after having feigned 
madness. The 1945 cause of the crash was an incorrect estimation of the height 
above ground, and the aircraft crashed directly into the ground. I have some 
pictures of the crew. There was an investigation of the crash, with the 
threat of a court martial, as the Weigel's aircraft was apparently followed 
in the pattern by a British nightfighter. In addition, his wife (fiancee?) 
was at the airfield. Weigel radioed the field to inform them and desperately 
asked for help. However, the runway lighting was then switched off and 
Weigel crashed after coming into contact with trees. Apparently the sound of 
gunfire was heard. In the end, it did not come to a court martial, and the 
matter was suppressed.


However, according to other loss records, Ju 88 G-6, 620187, of I./NJG 5 was 
destroyed in combat north of Kitzingen. Note that Brünnstad is about 3 km 
west of Gerolzhofen. F/L MacFadyen's report details that at 23.10, 
Gerolzhofen was lit, with red signals fired west of the aerodrome. A contact 
was obtained at 3 1/2 miles at 1,200 feet altitude, crossing starboard to 
port and slightly above. The Mosquito followed in a port orbit over the 
aerodrome, the e/a firing flares as it went, answered by a green from the 
ground, then by numerous amber flares from the ground, which MacFadyen took 
to be intruder warnings. E/A then turned starboard out of the orbit, heading 
to Kitzingen and weaving a bit. Mosquito closed to 100 feet, and below at 
altitude of 1,200 feet, and visually identified e/a as a Ju 88 G. Mosquito 
dropped back to 150 yards and fired a five-second burst. Strikes were seen 
all over the fuselage, and the starboard engine caught fire. E/A went slowly 
into a port spiral and crashed into the first bend in the river Main, north 
of Kitzingen. This matches the location given for 620187, whereas 621077's 
loss location, confirmed by the airfield records at Gerolzhofen, is about 
15km away from this bend in the river. The puzzle is continuing ..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2005)

Wow that has to suck..... I think I would almost rather get shot down then go down because I clipped a tree.


----------



## Erich (Dec 19, 2005)

Richtig ! like my cousins Bf 110G-4 having an engine fire spreading to the wing, ordered his other two crew members to bail out which they did and the a/c flipped over taking my cousin flying the a/c down like a rock smashing into the ground just outside his airfield. what royally sucks this was not due to any operational action


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2005)

To me that would be the worst way to go, a mechanical failure.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 19, 2005)

I agree....


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 19, 2005)

So do I.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2005)

I actually try not and think about it.


----------



## Erich (Jan 3, 2006)

prost Neujahr !

another rare colour shot of a Stab I./NJG 2 bird after war. Nice welle pattern camo over RLM 76 blue-white/grey 

let the research continue


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 3, 2006)

Nice shot Erich, nice too see a colour picture.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 3, 2006)

EXCELLENT PIC ERICH!! Very nice...


----------



## Erich (Jan 5, 2006)

In the night we came with 88 G-6 from below (Naxos radar) and shooting with Schräge Musik in the fuel-tanks when we saw the shadow of the 4-engine plane, distance depending on night-sight between 200 and 70 meters. Not closer, otherwise you were hit by debris like my freind Gerd Friedrich when lancaster and J 88 were both at ground same spot.

the forward firing 2cm weapons of the 88G-6 were adjusted to 100m. their lines of fire were parallel with a rise o approx. 100cm in that distance. _______________________________________________________________

the first part a quote to me from a night fighter ace-friend just recently. Gerd by the way was a Ritterkreuz winner in NJG 6 and got to close with his Ju 88G-6 and crew, fired with his 2cm weapons and the Lancaster bomb load exploded taking the Ju 88G-6/crew out as well in one huge, violent explosion


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 5, 2006)

> the Lancaster bomb load exploded taking the Ju 88G-6/crew out as well in one huge, violent explosion


Not the first time thats happened, but damn all the same...


----------



## Erich (Jan 7, 2006)

you guys might be interested in this from a German night fighter pilot and a response in addition from my good friend Rod M.

The night 13.-14.01.1945 shows indeed (as you explained))that the night-war in the air was already lost like the day-war in the air the year before.(KTB NJG 6 page 220)

In the last months of 1944 the voice-traffic was jammed so heavy by RAF that our radio-operators worked on Gruppen- and Divisions-frequenz with old-fashioned Morse code (Tastverkehr). When sitting in our planes (Sitzbereitschaft) the radio-operator recieved the order that we should assemble after take-off at FuF Otto (radio-beacon Otto). At Otto the radio-operator told us follow the bomber-stream in direction of Fuf Dachs-Mitte. Gruppe IV/NJG 6 could not get this message because Gruppen - and Divisions-tranmitter were jammed.

The RAF was clever to use nights where weatherwise in England was a cold-front and Germany had a warm-front with bad visibility and low overcast 300 meters. That was also the reason "Spitzenbesatzungen", pilots with experience, took off only during this night. The weather and ground-vivibility was so bad that the group-commander Schulte crashed during taxiing with another Ju 88 and II/NJG 6 could not take off. And I/NJG 6 was sent to FuF Möve instead without getting enemy-contct. With 17 nightfighters NJG 6 against a stream of several hundred 4-eng planes protected by how many mosquitos (check the RAF-files), no successes, two Ju 88 destroyed at the ground.

Did you know that the helpless LW-command did use the strong broadcasting radio stations over Cologne and Berlin f.e. to give us nightfighters the position of the bomberstream? Cologne played then carnival-musik and Berlin march-musik and -you will laugh to-day if it would not be so very sad- that over Vienna they played waltz-musik.


----------



## Erich (Jan 7, 2006)

simplification: the German night fighter defences were jammed before they even could get air-borne plus the fact the RAF knew where all the air basese were located and even strengths that they would meet in the air, Rod's response in addition: RAF 100th group being very effective......

the British (100 Group)reported that the following jamming was carried out:

-14 out of 15 high-frequency wireless control channels with ‘Drumstick’ transmitters in the UK (the 15th channel wasn’t deemed important enough to jam),

-commentary broadcast on 8 active radio beacons with airborne- and ground-based ‘Fidget’,

-early warning ground radar with both airborne- and ground-based ‘Mandrel’ (Saarbrücken attack),

-AI radar with ‘Piperack’-equipped aircraft accompanying the bomber streams,

-6 high-frequency and 9 medium-frequency radio transmissions and 1 high-frequency wireless transmission with ‘Corona’, ‘Special Tinsel’ and ‘Jostle’


And from the end of January it could only get worse. As effective as the jamming may have been, 100 Group were aware that devices such as 'Fidget', broadcast from the UK using very powerful BBC transmitters, were only effective up to a certain range and in certain prevailing atmospheric conditions (they tested their systems using signals investigation aircraft that would check the strength of jamming over certain beacons etc while the night attacks were occurring). But the end of January saw the beginning of large scale use of land-based jamming on the coninent (i.e. almost in the Nachtjagd's back yard) by No. 80 Group, thereby effectively increasing the range of both monitoring and jamming. Obviously, as the Allies advanced, these ground units also moved forward.... However, as is obvious, it didn't stop the Nachtjagd having occasional successes during Feb and Mar 45 that cost Bomber Command heavily.

As an aside, Peter, you may be interested to know that the British "Y" service was well aware of the airborne movements of NJG6, in fact, more so than any other Nachtjagd unit during Jan-Mar 45. Here is a summary of movements deduced by the "Y" service from radio transmissions on the night of the 14/15 Jan 45, as published in a 100 Group Sigint Report prepared only a few days after the night in question (you will see that they compare surprisingly well with the info in the KTB:

(On this night the RAF mounted two successive raids on Merseburg)

19.11 IV./NJG 6 ordered to Koblenz area
19.32 II./NJG 6 ordered to FuF Otto
19.40 Bombs reported dropping on Mannheim (diversion attack)
19.42 II./NJG 6 ordered to Mannheim
19.45 IV./NJG 6 ordered to Mannheim
20.24 I./NJG 6 ordered to land
20.26 II./NJG 6 ordered to FuF Dora (when controllers realised real bomber force was heading to Merseburg)
20.35 IV./NJG 6 ordered to FuF Dora
20.55 Bombs reported dropping on Merseburg
20.58 II./NJG 6 ordered to Merseburg
21.27 II./NJG 6 ordered to land
21.31 IV./NJG 6 ordered to land


22.00+ I. IV./NJG 6 airborne and sent to FuF Otto
23.03 I. IV./NJG 6 ordered to Weimar area
23.16 I. IV./NJG 6 ordered to FuF Dora
23.41 I./NJG 6 advised target was Merseburg
00.08 IV./NJG 6 ordered to land


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 7, 2006)

Great stuff Erich, really interesting. I didn't know that the allied jamming was so effective, I would have thought that the Germans would have found ways around it similar to what they did with "window".


----------



## Blackwatch (Jan 7, 2006)

very interesting...thanks Erich


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 7, 2006)

Blackwatch said:


> very interesting...thanks Erich


Yeah, what _he_ said.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

I wonder if there are any Radar sites still around to see, or atleast the base of them. I really doubt the actually antennas are still around but it would be neat.


----------



## Erich (Jan 8, 2006)

the bases of ground radars can be found in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Finland. will try to post some soon .......... there is afantastic web-site done up by a Doctoral freind with just the systems in mind. will post addy later


----------



## v2 (Jan 8, 2006)

Interesting site...
http://www.baermann.biz/pauke/


----------



## Erich (Jan 8, 2006)

the site is full of mistakes and should not even be considered, sorry V2

here is my friends site the best on the net..........

http://www.gyges.dk

it should be bookmarked and anyone and I mean anyone ever interested in radars both Luftwaffe and KM shold vist and chek through the many pages SLOWLY. It is indeed the finest done on the net period !


----------



## v2 (Jan 8, 2006)

Thank you, Erich- interesting site it is...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

Yes very interesting, thanks. What are inaccuracies in the other site, erich?


----------



## Erich (Jan 8, 2006)

will let ya kow this week depending just on how much he releases to his site. back in 99 I told him he had many things wrong and the site was closed down due to ?? the colour chips are pretty accurate but way too small. note the blue-white colour which faded to a grey white RLM 76 colour square chip. this is actually the right colour and none of this steel grey or light grey present in profiles.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

Ah okay cool.


----------



## v2 (Jan 23, 2006)

German night fighter during ground training in "blind flight".


----------



## Erich (Jan 24, 2006)

back at it. From another forum via N.P. this from Bertram a noted pilot in NJG 100 which performed dual roles with it's Ju 88G-6's aviation ops against RAF bombers and Soviet bombers, and biplane harrassment craft and the ugly night ground attack missions............

note this as I have heard it from other late war Germn nf pilots with their a/c. this is quite an important statement ...... read slowly

II. Gruppe appears to have spent most of its time shifting from field to field in the face of the Soviet advance - through Ost Preussen and Pommern the primary mission was no longer Fernnachtjagd, as the Gruppe increasingly flew Nachtschlachteinsaetze against Russian ground columns - although sorties were hampered by lack of fuel. According to his own account Bertram would fly on clear nights only, climb for altitude, shut his engines down and then glide in over the road convoys...

and vaporize Soviet MT with 2cm Minengeschoss- incendiary/API


----------



## evangilder (Jan 24, 2006)

Great info E. Can you do me a favor, my german is poor. If you could put a translation in paranthesis or something for the longer german words, it would help. I can figure out gruppe, but Fernnachtjagd and Nachtschlachteinsaetze I am having trouble with.


----------



## Erich (Jan 24, 2006)

Eric: Ferne - long distance; so the term would mean long range/distance night fighting

Nachtschlachteinsätze = night ground attack operations or in this case missions.

cool huh. Never heard of a P-61 in the ETO doing that on night intrusions against ground targets. the Germans had to improvise as best they could being outnumbered


----------



## evangilder (Jan 24, 2006)

Thanks, Erich. Considering what they had to work with, I would say they improvised pretty well.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 24, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Thanks, Erich. Considering what they had to work with, I would say they improvised pretty well.


Agreed, at the end of the war the Germans did very well with what they had left.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2006)

Germans have always been known for doing that.


----------



## Erich (Jan 26, 2006)

more interesting late war thoughts from freind Rod M. much turth in these latter war months and movements

while shifting through reports of RAF Bomber Command RCM efforts during 1945, I have noticed on numerous occasions that at least one Nachtjagd W/T fighter control frequency, presumedly the actual frequency differed from night to night, could not be jammed because it was also used by Bomber Command (possibly for windfinding broadcasts etc).

What I am unsure of is whether these occurances were coincidental or whether there was a concerted effort to, firstly, establish the frequencies used by the bombers by the German "Y" service and then, secondly, to use the same frequencies for fighter control in the knowledge that they would be jammed.

Does anyone have any more documentary information on this?

It is interesting to see how many frequencies were jammed during a particular raid but to still see that the British "Y" service picked up a considerable amount of transmissions broadcast to the night fighters (i.e. if the British could hear it then the fighters could also, in psite of the jamming). My initial feeling from analysing this data is that during 1945, the factors that affected the ability of the Nachtjagd to mount a successful defence were:

1. The inability of the controllers to direct night fighters to the right place at the right time due the diversion measures and jamming. On quite a number of nights, up to 200 night fighters were airborne and pre-positioned but were never infiltrated in to a bomber stream in any numbers - thus resulting in a major expenditure of effort and fuel for only a small return. On many other nights, night fighters, when in a favourable position to infiltrate a bomber stream, were instead directed against a diversion while the real threat slipped by. On the occasions when the controllers did get it right, Bomber Command forces suffered casualty rates of between 5-24% but this was few and far between and usually only against one out of two or three seperate bomber streams operating during a particular night.

2. Bad weather conditions, lack of experienced crews and fuel rationing limiting the number of sorties that could be flown. In Jan-Feb 1945, the winter weather appears to have had a major limiting effect of Nachtjagd ops, with many Gruppen grounded. Allied to this is the number of nights that only experienced crews were used, sometimes to good effect but in such small numbers. For example, a look at the Abschussmeldungen for the entire first Gruppe of NJG2 confirms this - only two pilots claimed around 95% of the victories by this unit in 1945.

Often the lack of fuel is stated as a major cause for the limited success of the Nachtjagd during the final months of the war. Although a contributory factor, as stated in (2) above, I do not see it as the main reason...


----------



## Erich (Feb 4, 2006)

one of the many mysterious I./NJG 100 birds flying on the Ost front against RAF and Soviet a/c types besides nasty night ground attack operations with much success !

dig the paint job, from Czech republic ~ Luftwaffe after war


----------



## Erich (Feb 5, 2006)

left fuselage of said machine ..........


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 5, 2006)

Interesting pics and color scheme erich...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2006)

Interesting color scheme. You said the Czhech did that after the war?


----------



## Erich (Feb 5, 2006)

no this was a German scheme while portions of NJG 100 were at Czech airfields towards wars end. Sadly the code has been painted out so I do not know what staffel it is from


----------



## Erich (Feb 9, 2006)

well, just received word from Germany some 6 hrs ago that ace nf pilot Martin Becker has now passed as of last night. Martin did not see his 90th birthday and was was ill for some time. 58 kills, last Gruppenkommandeur of IV./NJG 6 flying a Ju 88G-6 without the SM installation. Both he and his Bordfünker Karl Johanssen were Ritterkreuz winners, Karl still being in good health.





RIP Martin


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 9, 2006)




----------



## Gnomey (Feb 10, 2006)

RIP


----------



## evangilder (Feb 10, 2006)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2006)




----------



## Erich (Feb 27, 2006)

just caught my ace friend Peter Spoden at home before his trip this weekend for the Aviation print and book signing at Bucks England with two other NJG 6 kamerades. asked him aobut flying Ju 88G-6 in ground attack in spring of 45 :

Erich,

According the KTB NJG 6 (war-diary) my group I and the IV NJG 6 started with ground attacks at 25th of March 1945 against the Rhein-bridge at Oppenheim with 12 Bf 110 and 4 Ju 88. We lost 2 Ju 88 and 4 Bf 110 because of heavy anti-aircraft fire by US troops at low altitude. I dont remember what kind of 2-cm-ammunition we used but remember we also used kind of "Streubomben" in containers under our a/c against road- and railway-traffic towards the other, meanwhile occupied side of Rhein-river where we could see thousands of lighted trucks streaming against Germany. I never forget that picture. Our success was more than marginal.


----------



## Henk (Feb 27, 2006)

Great info Erich.

Henk


----------



## Royzee617 (Feb 28, 2006)

One fact about WW2 was that there were never enough Mossies!

Two of the most versatile warplanes ever up against each other - would make a good book!

Didn't I read somewhere that the LW liked the Mozzie so much they were actually considering copying it? They had their own Mozzie of course, the Moskito. Probably so as to get around any copyright infringement.

I wonder if a Ju88 ever got underneath a Mozzie and blasted it with the old SM?


----------



## Erich (Feb 28, 2006)

to your last question.............yes as well as Beufighters, all done by Ju 88G-6's armed with Schrägwaffen.

read my earlier posts about my book(s)


----------



## Smokey (Feb 28, 2006)

One of the Ju 88's competitiors looked remarkably like the Mosquito and flew in 1937

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hs127.html






http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/hs127.html


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 1, 2006)

POC c.f. the ultimate aesthetics of the Mozzie!


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 1, 2006)

BTW I'd reckon that at first the success would rely on who had the better avionics. I read somewhere the Mozzie was a good 'stealth' plane thanks to its wooden construction c.f. all metal planes. Dunno how this would help hide from Wurzburgs etc and fighter direction given the 88 was operating over home turf.

They are about on a par wrt armament too. Ex for the SM I mentioned above.

All told I would think the Mozzie could outmanoeuvre the 88 on weight grounds if nothing else.

I wonder which was the more robust. Maybe the liquid-cooled Merlins were less robust than air-cooled radials of the 88.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 1, 2006)

The spinning props which are metal would be an excellent radar reflector hardly stealth


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 1, 2006)

True, it was just a thought.... relative to another aircraft of comparable dimensions was what I meant.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 5, 2006)

> air-cooled radials of the 88.



The -88 had inline engines, in the same way as the -190D however they had circular cowlings.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 5, 2006)

I believe some Ju-88 variants had radials though...


----------



## Erich (Mar 5, 2006)

just to add my two cents ............ Ju G-1 had BMW 801's and the G-6 had in-line Jumo 213E's hot rods up to 2500hp; circular radiators but from the outside you would say with the cooling grills which were needed they were somewhat cone shaped.....


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 6, 2006)

Apparently the Ju.88G-7 was gonna be the ''Mossie-killer''......


----------



## Erich (Mar 6, 2006)

actually no

the G-6 stopped and a longer fuselage/long range G-10 was to be finalized some sources indicate that NJG 3 had at leat 10 airframes in their line-up but am not totally positive on that. Personally feel that the UK would of felt the Fernenachtjagd again whether it had home defence Mossies on hand or not and thus it is why the G-10 was to be in the lineups by fall of 45 along with more Me 262B's for home Reich coverage


----------



## Henk (Mar 6, 2006)

Erich said:


> just to add my two cents ............ Ju G-1 had BMW 801's and the G-6 had in-line Jumo 213E's hot rods up to 2500hp; circular radiators but from the outside you would say with the cooling grills which were needed they were somewhat cone shaped.....



You are right Erich. The Ju-88 were a great aircraft. It could do what ever you want when you want it to perform the needed task. The Ju-88 I must say honestly could never have caught up with a Mosquito.

Henk


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2006)

The Ju-88 could not outperform a mossie on any level, I just love teh Ju-88 because of how versatile it was. It litterally could do anything.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 7, 2006)

So could the Mossie...


----------



## Erich (Mar 7, 2006)

not outperform, hmmmmmmmmmmmm I think it could and did. 88G-6 was a powerhouse that we never hear of except in a static situation with schematics at a performance level. In the hands of a skilled crew more than a bargain for a Mossie XXX crew even. night skies, clarity, wind, and just plain weather conditions in general plus pilot/crew experience all played in the game of cat and mouse


----------



## Erich (Mar 15, 2006)

a rare occurence during 1945 the NJG 1 airfield at Werl buzzed by the 406th fighter group, with 1 P-47D-30 coming in low early evening ......... ah yes the story:

hallo,
es stimmt,der oberfeldwebel (bodenpersonal) und ich waren gerade dabei,meine maschine startklar zu machen,als in der abendsonne im tiefflug der platz werl angegriffen wurde.
vor der halle war eine vierlingsflak,mit der wir eine der angreifenden maschinen tarfen,die mit rauchfahne südlich von werl abstürzte.
da ich diesen abschuss nicht sofort meldete,bekam ich noch einen " Anschiss" !
hat der pilot der abgeschossenen maschine überlebt,wenn ja,adresse bitte !
horrido und alles gute
herbert scholl ( 5/NJG 1)

with Ofw. Bittrof they set upon the 2cm Flavierling to defend their little base.

my response about the shot down P-47 and the pilots remains

Sehr geehrter Herr Scholl

vielen Dank für die kurze, jedoch sehr interessante Episode. Der Pilot des von Ihnen abgeschossenen Flugzeugs (eine P-47D-30-RA) war Paul W. Mazal von der 513. Jagdstaffel (406. Jagdgruppe der 9.US Air Force), der beim Absturz seiner Maschine ums Leben kam. Sein Schiksal konnte erst kürzlich geklärt werden, nachdem im Sommer 2005 die Absturzstelle ermittelt wurde und eine seiner Hundemarken gefunden wurde. Weiterhin wurde sein Name auf dem Rücken der Pilotenjacke und die Seriennummer am Rumpf gefunden, was die sofortige Identifizierung erleichterte. Seit dem 10.Januar 2006 gilt er offiziell als im Einsatz gefallen.

Herr Scholl piloted a Bf 110G-4


----------



## mhuxt (Mar 15, 2006)

That's good stuff Erich.

<S>


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 19, 2006)

I may have to disagree on that Erich...The G-7 'Moskitojager' prototypes were clobbered in a raid on Dessau 7/8 Mar. 1945, and sure, the G-10 was going to come on stream with Jumo 213 A-12's and lengthened fuselages, but being at least 5000 lbs heavier than the Mossies, and with their newer models with faster Merlin 100 series engines, extra RAF Sqn.'s being released from Home Defence, the Ju-88's were at the limit of development, other than strapping jets on, like they tried on the He-219 V-14....The Ju-88's were superb, versatile aircraft, a great foil to the Mossie, but my feeling is the Mossies were ultimately faster more manoevrable overall.....


----------



## Erich (Mar 19, 2006)

there were no G-7 mosksitojägers as it was not thought of using prop driven a/c when Kommando Welter had already proven itself as the ultimate in Mossie chasing with the Me 262A-1a. The G-7 nomeclature is post war myth.

Fernenachtjagd would of been the norm nightly where the Ju 88G-6 could perform at will with new elctroncis that were coming on the spring of 45. the G-10 would of mostly been used had it been perfected dur to the longer range. ideally but not accepted in the late spring of 45 was the future come on development of the twin seater Me 262B-1a to take on the RAF 4 motors. It is in our book


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 19, 2006)

Ahh, I've only read of 'G-7's' in one book, so the G-10 would've had the fuselage similar to the 'H' then, altho they didn't proceed with that either.
One would expect that had the 262's got in their stride, the Meteor would've superceded Mossies, had the War continued....[They did too, but well after the War]...

Well, it says something that it took a jet fighter to tackle the Mosquito, altho if the He-219 had've got what it needed, it may have been different...Could one surmise then that the Ta-152 was also a potential 'Moskitojager' from inception ? 

I look forward to reading your book Erich, the value of ongoing research can never be underestimated.....


----------



## Erich (Mar 19, 2006)

I think the jigs at Dessau could of been the G-10 config. NJG 3 had actually several from what I surmise but they did not fly them on ops due to ....... ? am not sure. Even with a much more robust engine to drive the extra length, more fuel and overall size it still would of had probs with the Mossie intruders.

jet night fighters at war with one another would of been an interesting scenario and probably conceivable by 1945's end. Yes the Ta 152 was even considered as a high altitude composite with an onboard radar. another interesting what-if. True for any mossie chaser it had to of been an a/c with a hard hitting design for speed, minimum armor and armament but completely aerodynamic and yet even with speed had to have endurance with extra fuel, something the German's were in quite short supply of ........


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 19, 2006)

Bomber Command definately clobbered apparently all 4 Junkers factories on that date, but as to what was irreparably damaged is unclear, as you say, G-7's were a myth, but there were different versions of the G-6, am I correct ?....

Thanks for that on the Ta-152, I'd always wondered about it, particuarly as PR Mossies Spits were an effront to the Luftwaffe....

I also wonder that the DH Hornet was already in being, tho' not in Sqn. service by War's end, and doubtless even more faster manoevrable than the Mossies, so that in combat vs Jet / Ta-152, they may have 
presented quite a problem too ?....Conjecture I know, but what are your thoughts on this ?.....


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 21, 2006)

Hmmmm, not even worth an answer....


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 21, 2006)

Maybe if I wrote it German then...............................after 4225 posts of comment OPINION, you may be abit stuck..........Ja ??


----------



## Erich (Mar 21, 2006)

Gem :

I apoligize I got the flu last night and not a very pleasing morning it is, I think I had an hour of sleep max. I'll be back when I can read your postings clearly as the PC text is all fuzzy. probably this afternoon, I need a walk to think about Mossie XXX and Ju 88G-6's ~ 8) 

chin up.

E


----------



## Erich (Mar 21, 2006)

the jet idea for the British ........... ? no clue. for the Germans the twin seater B-2a would of come into the ranks against RAF bombers and also Arado 234 night fighters.

no actually there was only 1 JU 88G-6 the only thing different about the 3 was the electronics fitted but that did not change them to a, b or c as books like to call them.. This is another after war story


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 21, 2006)

Thanks Erich; I'm sorry, I didn't realise you had the flu - I wish you a speedy recovery...

I had thought the Ar-234 was a single-seater with only rearward armament, although it's potential as a NF would've been exciting - I had often thought they had tremendous potential as an Intruder with forward armament...Had they actually been toying with these ideas for it ? - I know Hitler's-bent for 'bombers' had affected it's initial role.....

With the Ju-88 G-6, that was what I had been led to believe, 'a,b,c..' as William Green had written, for example....There were some faster longer-range variants though, wasn't there, such as the 'S T' variants, used more for PR work ?


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 29, 2006)

this is a good link I found about radar in ww 2 from all sides I hope its not old news
http://www.vectorsite.net/ttwiz9.html#m4


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 2, 2006)

Both aircraft were indeed quick dangerous, it came down largely to the radar... In the Mosquitos they had the Allied 'Mk.X' which was probably the best AI of the War, and it could be operated down to 1000-1500 ft. In addition, there were two addional displays in the aircraft...'Perfectos', a small diameter cathode ray tube fitted in the AI visor, displayed enemy IFF transmissions and this device could detect from a much greater range than was possible using the AI....'Monica' was fitted at the bottom of the instrument panel and showed aircraft coming from behind at a range of about 1-2 miles...[German radar was eventually able to track onto Monica emissions]...Also, the British 'Y-Service' provided the enemy 'colours of the day' and the Mossie crews were given the suitable colour cartridges to fire off in their Verey pistols to confuse the enemy Bofors fire, commonly protecting Luftwaffe airfields...Fuel shortages straggled the Luftwaffe, the Mossies [in 100 Group) finished the War using napalmgel against the Luftwaffe airfields.......


----------



## Erich (Jun 15, 2006)

well it appears that VDM verlag in Germany is going to prodcue the new book from ace Heinz Rökker, a personal bio about pre-war and the war years so hopeful he will give his first hand impression on his flights and the problems that his I./NJg 2 had with Mossies ........... ? again it is funny that the Stab NJG 2 ace and leader, Gerhard Raht and crew never had a prob with Mossie nf's in the war


----------



## Twitch (Jun 16, 2006)

Since this thread is revived for the moment I'd like to add my respect and awe for the versatility of the Junkers airframe in its adaptation almost any role it was conceived for.

Of course the development didn't end with the 88. The 188, 288 and 388 models had some frightenly high horsepower and potent speeds. An amazing weapons platform!


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jul 12, 2006)

I often think the BMW 801 should have been developed a hell of a lot more and given more resources. It would IMO have made a great Jabo engine, in the same league as the twin-wasp?

As a schnellbomber/tactical bomber I believe the Ju88 had had its day, though I believe it was much better than the He111 in every way?

For ground attack and nightfigher missions though, I think it was briliant. I think gondola 20mm's are way inferior to nose Mk108's though - would that have been possible with a radar? - or even a short-barrelled 50mm?

IIRC some Ju88's were armed with flamethrowers...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Since this thread is revived for the moment I'd like to add my respect and awe for the versatility of the Junkers airframe in its adaptation almost any role it was conceived for.
> 
> Of course the development didn't end with the 88. The 188, 288 and 388 models had some frightenly high horsepower and potent speeds. An amazing weapons platform!



Agreed 100%

In my opinion she was the most versatile aircraft of WW2 making her one of the greatest ever built. True there were aircraft that could do certain roles that the Ju-88 did and do them better than the Ju-88 but the Ju-88 could do the most roles successfully and well.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 13, 2006)

that being said the mossie wasn't far behind in those stakes, and she too derived the Hornet and to some extent the Canberra (designed from lessons learnt with regards to the use of the mossie and performing the same role)............

and the flamethrowers on the -88s were useless, good only for spraying the oil they used as fuel........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

The Flame throwers were not a role the Ju-88 played but rather a defensive weapon that was tried.

Who cares if they did not work, they looked cool as hell.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jul 14, 2006)

I was thinking if they were used against a wooden target filled with bombs and fuel...


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 14, 2006)

NF Mossies were sent as part of the bomber stream to look for German nightfighters, other squadrons concentrated on intruder missions against airfields. Off topic a little bit, Beaufighters equipped with Serrate equpiment also flew with the bomber stream. A trick used by Mossies, was that H2S could be tracked by German recievers, thus luring in the Nactjagd not to a bomber, but to a nightfighter waiting for them


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Dec 21, 2009)

If we are talking about night fighting then I kinda am goin with the mossie. She was much faster than any ju88c (although the 88G was pretty fast), and had better radar (once again the 88 G's FuG 340 Berlin N-1a was pretty amazing), although i am goin to giv the 88 firepower especially because of the 30s.

As for other roles both are pretty much tied. The mosquito is gonna always have a speed advantage, but 88 is always gonna some adv in versatality (ex. a ju 88a can, at any time, divebomb) and probably armor (atleast on the 88A14, A13, and Cs designed for ground attack). Payloads are pretty much the same: 2,000 (4 500lbs) internal and 1,000(2 500) external for the mosquito to the ju 88's 1,000kgs (4 250kg) under inboard wing racks and 500kgs internal (10 50kgs). If want to mention the mosquito's cookie (4,000lbs bomb), the ju88 replies with a pair of 1,000kg bombs.


----------



## Juha (Dec 21, 2009)

Hello WWII
the fixed armament of Ju88G was 4 20mm cannon, exactly the same as in late war Mosquito NFs.

The bad point in external loads was the drag, it decreases speed and range. 

IMHO Mossie was better NF, as bomber, that's more difficult to say, depending on target and role. As fast night bomber Mossie was very good because of its speed.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Dec 21, 2009)

An aluminum aircraft is almost certainly more durable then a wooden aircraft. And that's before we consider rot and termite damage.


----------



## Soren (Dec 21, 2009)

airplane aluminum is also a good deal stronger than regular aluminum.


----------



## Juha (Dec 22, 2009)

Hello Dave
What is your point? IMHO during WWII attrition and becoming obsolete were very important reasons for a/c to be struck off charge. When RAF retired its last first line Mossies in late 55 I don’t recall many metal WWII first line combat planes still in first line use in major AFs, only A-/B-26 Invader came easily into my mind. Rot was a problem in tropics to Mossie but not insuperable, because last Mossie operational sorties were flown in Malaya, IIRC. They had retired Spitfire 1½ years earlier. So IMHO the longevity of airframe wasn't very important factor during WWII. And on the other hand wooden construction allowed to sprea production to underutilized sector of industry when conventional a/c manufacture capacity was stretched to its limits.

One factor for metal structures was that they were easier to recycle, just melt them into ingots and use again. I have no idea what they did on SOCed Mossies, burned the airframes?

Juha


----------



## riacrato (Dec 22, 2009)

Discussing the subject at work I was told aluminium airframes are easier to design and to adapt because typical aviation engineers usually know a lot more about working with metals and rivets than they know about woods and glues. The resulting airframes are also usually easier to adapt because metal is more forgiving when loads and forces change.

I like the Mosquito a lot because it was such a simple and straightforward airframe that was so versatile without much need for adaption. As a defensive night fighter I'd overall take the Ju 88 G because of its schraege musik armament, as an intruder/escort the Mosquito takes the cake. Fast bomber, again the Mosquito, the Ju would've fared better with a bomb bay that could at least take 4x250kg bombs. As a medium/tactical bomber I'd give it to the Ju because of it's dive bomber capability.


----------



## Juha (Dec 22, 2009)

Hello Riacrato
without checking I would say that Ju 88A could not carry 4x250kg internally, only 10x 50kg, that's why it carried its 250/500 of 1000kg bombs externally.

Quote:"Discussing the subject at work I was told aluminium airframes are easier to design and to adapt because typical aviation engineers usually know a lot more about working with metals and rivets than they know about woods and glues..."

True, but de Havilland team had much experience on wood and that was what mattered in case of Mossie. They had a little earlier designed DH 91 Albatross 4 engine wooden airliner.

Juha


----------



## riacrato (Dec 22, 2009)

I meant the Ju "would've fared better _if it had had _ a bomb bay that could carry at least 4x250kg internally".

This is the first time I ever had to use "had had", I'm sure.


----------



## Soren (Dec 22, 2009)

Juha,

I think Dave was refering to resistance to damage and strength of the material, not the lifespan of the material if placed outside to decay 

Fact is airplane aluminum is a good deal strong than wood, and also a good deal more durable when it comes to taking damage as-well as handling the stresses of maneuvering flight. I'd also be worried about fires a lot more in a wooden aircraft, esp. seeing as the Germans primarily were shooting with explosive incendiary rounds.


----------



## Juha (Dec 22, 2009)

Hello Riacrato
by bad, I seem to have reading difficulties, a sure sign that its time to go bed.

Hello Soren
entirely possible that i misunderstood dave's message.

On fire risk, I'm not sure of that, a/c fires were usually fuel, oil or hydraulic fluid etc fires and aluminium isn't known for its fire resistance either. hat why aluminium powder was many times used in incendiary rounds.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 22, 2009)

i want remember, and is not the first time, the internal bomb load of 88 it's 1400 kg (28*50kg), the use of one or both bomb bay for tank fuel it's not compulsory (but for good range/similar to mosquito need add fuel or drop tanks or bay tank fuel) i want remember that the external load of 88 (A-4) its' 3 tons. at example can fly with 2 drop tank (for in all 3480 liters of fuel) and full (28*50) internal bomb load. or can load 6*250 kg external and use the bay for fuel (for 3580 liters in all). or go with 2*1000 and 2*500 kg and regular internal fuel (1680 liters) for short range tactical mission.


----------



## Soren (Dec 22, 2009)

Juha,

Regarding the fire risk, I was thinking about the weakening of the structure due to fire. Furthermore wood will not handle the effect of blasts very well. What I am trying to say here is that the Mossie was a very thin skinned bird and if caught in your sights rather easy to bring down.


----------



## Juha (Dec 23, 2009)

Hello Vincenzo
Yes you are right but IIRC the use of the front bay fuel cell was common, in FAF it was a norm and at that configuration only 10x50kg could be carried internally.

Hello Soren
Fire weakened also aluminium structures fast, if for ex wing tanks caught fire, structural failure usually followed soon. IMHO there was not a big difference in that, But I agree that wooden structures don’t handle effects of blast very well because of splintering and even bullet hits caused that in small scale. I don’t know was the sandwich structure used in Mossie a bit better in this than ordinary plywood. In concrete terms Mossie wasn’t very thin skinned because of that sandwich structure.

Juha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2009)

Wrought Aluminum alloys (7075) that made of heavier aircraft structures are a lot more fire resistant than wood. Even the thinner and more malleable 24T alloys could withstand some direct fire on them. It would take temperatures about 800F to start upsetting any temper and close to 800F for the material to melt.

Usually you found composite aluminum/ steel construction in high strength areas (Steel parts, attach fittings if built in 2 pieces for example). Bottom line, an in-flight fire (although each is generally different) would be a lot more survivable in an aluminum structure than in a wood structure.


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2009)

Well FLYBOYJ's post pretty much makes my response for Juha redundant, FLYBOYJ is exactly right.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 23, 2009)

I dont know how fire resistant the Mossie was but surely talking of aluminium burning is beside the point most fires in aircraft are caused by fuel, oils and other combustibles. If your inside a burning plane the combustion point of the skin is the least of your worries.


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2009)

Again, we are talking about the weakening of the structure, not how combustable it is. 

The Mossie was thin skinned, the plywood not being very resistant to damage and weakening faster during fires than airplane aluminum. 

Btw, I believe FLYBOYJ posted this as-well a few years ago, German airplane aluminum was actually a bit stronger than Allied airplane aluminum.


----------



## Juha (Dec 23, 2009)

IMHO Mossie wasn't thin skinned if compared to skins of metal a/c of 40s and also wood/plywood can took some flame and as fastmongrel wrote fuel fires reached rather high temperatures and fire was often fatal to light metal structures, that's why HEI was so effective ammo against a/c.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2009)

When I say thin skinned I'm not talking about the skin of the a/c, but the structure as a whole, the word thin skinned being a metafor for weak. And the Mossie wasn't very strong structurally compared to other a/c, it quite simply didn't take damage very well and fires were more dangerous to it than to other a/c.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 23, 2009)

QUOTE=FLYBOYJ;608716]Wrought Aluminum alloys (7075) that made of heavier aircraft structures are a lot more fire resistant than wood. Even the thinner and more malleable 24T alloys could withstand some direct fire on them. It would take temperatures about 800F to start upsetting any temper and close to 800F for the material to melt.

Usually you found composite aluminum/ steel construction in high strength areas (Steel parts, attach fittings if built in 2 pieces for example). Bottom line, an in-flight fire (although each is generally different) would be a lot more survivable in an aluminum structure than in a wood structure.[/QUOTE]

Hi FB

Agree with everything there, however, in my opinion the construction of the frame and the structure are not the flamability vulnerabilty of an aircraft. I would think the most vulnerable parts of an aircraft to fire are the fuel tanks. Witness the Zero, an aircraft made of aluminium (well, mostly) and still basically a flying ronson. 

The laminar construction of the Mosquito was treated with a fire retardant chemical. Whilst the basic material of wooden construction is theoretically fire prone, in practice, the Mosquito was very resistant to fire.

Similalry the wooden construction techniques used in the Mosquito proved to be strong, very strong. I am no aeronautical engineer, but I have seen some pretty amazing photos over the years of battle damaged Mosquitos returning home

Part of my job in recent times has been to assist an inquest into some recent fatalities in bushfire hazard. Part of that inquest was to investigate the relative flammability of different buildings. The results of that inquest showed a number of issues, but in the context of timber constructed houses versus masonary, there is no difference in the flammability index, provided the timber in the house was treated with fire retardant. The sorts of things that led to the rapid spread of fire in houses are things like, exposed subfloor areas, open windows, or large glazed areas exposed to naked flame, heavy fuel loads close to the dwelling, blocked gutters from leaf litter, in higher risk areas, a failure of the internal sprinler systems and drenchers, unsecured roof areas or openings that allowed the entry of fire into the crawl spaces or other areas difficult to gain access to etc ....


I dont know how transferrable this expertise is to aircraft engineering, but in timber construction in house construction is only slightly more dangerous than other materials, provided it has been treated with fire retardant.


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2009)

Again, we're not talking about how easily it catches fire, we're talking about the structure coping with the heat without losing strength. Also if it gets hot enough, even with fire retardant, the wood will start to combust, as you obviously know judging by your last post. The point howeber is that wood quite simply aint as strong as airplane aluminum, not when it comes to tackling fires and neither when it comes to dealing with blast damage. 

I neither would've wanted to be sitting in a He162 being hit, that thing was undoubtedly not hard to bring down once you hit it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2009)

parsifal said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Wrought Aluminum alloys (7075) that made of heavier aircraft structures are a lot more fire resistant than wood. Even the thinner and more malleable 24T alloys could withstand some direct fire on them. It would take temperatures about 800F to start upsetting any temper and close to 800F for the material to melt.
> ...


And that they are when there is no protection against them from ignition and a continual source of fuel - like an unprotected fuel tank.


parsifal said:


> The laminar construction of the Mosquito was treated with a fire retardant chemical. Whilst the basic material of wooden construction is theoretically fire prone, in practice, the Mosquito was very resistant to fire.


Not really - a wood structure with any type of anti-flame retardant is only going to provide limited flame protection for a limited amount of time - get a fire going on treated plywood for 20 seconds or so and allow the temp to elevate to 200F and your structure (and probably the rest of the aircraft) is toast. As stated, the point of heat treated aluminum where it starts to plasticize (also known as the lower eutectic point) is just under 800F. Thin aluminum skin (.030) will being to buckle at lower temps, but ultimate failure for aluminum for heat is a lot higher than plywood or any type of wood structure.


parsifal said:


> Similalry the wooden construction techniques used in the Mosquito proved to be strong, very strong. I am no aeronautical engineer, but I have seen some pretty amazing photos over the years of battle damaged Mosquitos returning home


Wood can almost be as strong as aluminum but the more its repaired, the less resilient it gets. It requires special skills and a controlled environment to properly maintain and repair wood structured aircraft, let alone problems from the environment.


parsifal said:


> Part of my job in recent times has been to assist an inquest into some recent fatalities in bushfire hazard. Part of that inquest was to investigate the relative flammability of different buildings. The results of that inquest showed a number of issues, but in the context of timber constructed houses versus masonary, there is no difference in the flammability index, provided the timber in the house was treated with fire retardant. The sorts of things that led to the rapid spread of fire in houses are things like, exposed subfloor areas, open windows, or large glazed areas exposed to naked flame, heavy fuel loads close to the dwelling, blocked gutters from leaf litter, in higher risk areas, a failure of the internal sprinler systems and drenchers, unsecured roof areas or openings that allowed the entry of fire into the crawl spaces or other areas difficult to gain access to etc ....
> 
> 
> I dont know how transferrable this expertise is to aircraft engineering, but in timber construction in house construction is only slightly more dangerous than other materials, provided it has been treated with fire retardant.


You can transfer it to a point - if you know some of the other possible flammable by-products being used on the aircraft (electrical wire insulation, insulation material, rubber and leather products) one could probably make a determination how flame retardant the aircraft could actually be. In the case of the fireproofing used on WW2 aircraft, I could almost guess it would be the difference between a slow burn to a giant match stick.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 23, 2009)

I think by the time the wood burns to any extent the structural integrity of either the wood structure or the metal one are pretty much gone.
wood acts a better insulator than metal. 
while wood burns so does thin section aluminum. It takes a lot to get it going but it is not fire proof.
Many a "metal" airplane suffered wing spar failures after flame impingement from an engine fire or fuel tank fire.

Given the heat out put of a fuel tank (or even fuel leak) fire the difference in the failure time between a wood structure and a metal one in aircraft can probable be measured in seconds.

I have no idea how well it transfers over considering the different heat outputs and section sizes but in fire fighting a metal (steel)truss roof is considered more dangerous (quicker to fail) than a wooden one. Wooden ones with steel gusset plates are worsts but that is because the gusset plates fall out/away from the joints of the truss and cause failure that way before the structural members actually burn through.


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2009)

I don't think it will be a difference measured only in seconds. Furthermore the issue here is also can your a/c carry on incase you get the fire extingiushed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 23, 2009)

OK, Let us assume a wooden spar that is designed to a certain load factor, say 6 and our bomber is in level flight. there is an in wing fire due to a fuel leak. How much of the spar has to burn away before structural failure? how long does this take? just heating the spar to a few hundred degrees isn't going to do much (Ok perhaps some glue failure but the unburned wood itself retains it's strength. The wood parts of the wooden spar will retain their shape until they fail.

Our metal bomber under the same flight and load condition. same fire condition. the spar is too heavy in cross section to actually burn but how many seconds of exposure to the fire before it heats up enough to loose strength? once the aluminum spar reaches the temperature at which it will deform under load structural failure is just seconds or fractions of seconds away. The aluminum doesn't have to melt or puddle, just loose the ability to resist the load it is carrying and it can do this while still retaining a recognizable shape, an I beam will still look like an I beam, just bent or twisted. 

The aluminum spar will regain it's strength as it cools but if it has deformed it will not regain it's shape.


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2009)

You do realize that once 200F is reached the wood will combust, where'as the aircraft aluminum needs to become considerably hotter to even begin to deform.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 23, 2009)

I think Id have to concede that wood has a greater propensity to burn than metal, but there is a long way to go to say that the aircraft is more likley to burn as aresult of that, or that it is more likely to structurally fail. This is in the context of wartime technology remember. I think the most volatile and dangerous load on an aircraft are its munitions, followed by thefuel load, followed then by the combustibles, which includes the airframe. In that very narrow sense, the wooden airframe provides a more readily combustible element of the aircraft than an aluminium frame does. But I cant help but rely on my own experiences here to draw the conclusion, this is a relatively small and insignificant element of the threat. Long before the wooden frame burns to the point of failure, I think you are going to experience all sorts of other failures, like ammunition cook off, fuel explosions, electrical failures, toxic gas emissions from the plastics, engine failures, control failures. and the list goes on. I think it has to be conceded that wooden construction is more flammable than metal framing and skin, but in the context of a 1940 aircraft, how big a risk is this really....

200C is about the temperature that paper, or untreated lightweight timber will burn. If the the timber is treated it will withstand temperatures of up to about 300-350C particulalry if the air supply is limited. If there is plenty of air, the combustion temperature can drop a bit, but then you have a problem in that temperature retention rates drop


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I think by the time the wood burns to any extent the structural integrity of either the wood structure or the metal one are pretty much gone.
> wood acts a better insulator than metal.
> while wood burns so does thin section aluminum. It takes a lot to get it going but it is not fire proof.
> Many a "metal" airplane suffered wing spar failures after flame impingement from an engine fire or fuel tank fire.


I could tell you from experience that aluminum will hold up to fire WAY more than any type of wood, as stated, the temperatures of both materials failing speak for themselves.


Shortround6 said:


> Given the heat out put of a fuel tank (or even fuel leak) fire the difference in the failure time between a wood structure and a metal one in aircraft can probable be measured in seconds.


Depends on the heat, thickness of the material, type of aluminum and where its burning


Shortround6 said:


> I have no idea how well it transfers over considering the different heat outputs and section sizes but in fire fighting a metal (steel)truss roof is considered more dangerous (quicker to fail) than a wooden one. Wooden ones with steel gusset plates are worsts but that is because the gusset plates fall out/away from the joints of the truss and cause failure that way before the structural members actually burn through.


Now you're talking steel, whole different animal with regards to its lower eutectic point, heat conductivity and heat stress failure point.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> OK, Let us assume a wooden spar that is designed to a certain load factor, say 6 and our bomber is in level flight. there is an in wing fire due to a fuel leak. How much of the spar has to burn away before structural failure? how long does this take? just heating the spar to a few hundred degrees isn't going to do much (Ok perhaps some glue failure but the unburned wood itself retains it's strength. The wood parts of the wooden spar will retain their shape until they fail.


 The heat on the structure will do a lot more damage than you think


Shortround6 said:


> Our metal bomber under the same flight and load condition. same fire condition. the spar is too heavy in cross section to actually burn but how many seconds of exposure to the fire before it heats up enough to loose strength? once the aluminum spar reaches the temperature at which it will deform under load structural failure is just seconds or fractions of seconds away. The aluminum doesn't have to melt or puddle, just loose the ability to resist the load it is carrying and it can do this while still retaining a recognizable shape, an I beam will still look like an I beam, just bent or twisted.


Depends on the type of aluminum (2024T, 6061, 7075) it's temper and whether it's sheet, plate a forging or casting, and we have to throw in size and shape.


Shortround6 said:


> The aluminum spar will regain it's strength as it cools but if it has deformed it will not regain it's shape.


Not really - if a heat treated component has deformed because of being exposed to heat, it lost all its heat treated properties and although it may still seem structurally sound, it is actually molecularity unstable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I think Id have to concede that wood has a greater propensity to burn than metal, but there is a long way to go to say that the aircraft is more likley to burn as aresult of that, or that it is more likely to structurally fail. This is in the context of wartime technology remember. I think the most volatile and dangerous load on an aircraft are its munitions, followed by thefuel load, followed then by the combustibles, which includes the airframe. In that very narrow sense, the wooden airframe provides a more readily combustible element of the aircraft than an aluminium frame does. But I cant help but rely on my own experiences here to draw the conclusion, this is a relatively small and insignificant element of the threat. Long before the wooden frame burns to the point of failure, I think you are going to experience all sorts of other failures, like ammunition cook off, fuel explosions, electrical failures, toxic gas emissions from the plastics, engine failures, control failures. and the list goes on. I think it has to be conceded that wooden construction is more flammable than metal framing and skin, but in the context of a 1940 aircraft, how big a risk is this really....


All quite true


parsifal said:


> 200C is about the temperature that paper, or untreated lightweight timber will burn. If the the timber is treated it will withstand temperatures of up to about 300-350C particulalry if the air supply is limited. If there is plenty of air, the combustion temperature can drop a bit, but then you have a problem in that temperature retention rates drop


Agree...


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 23, 2009)

The wood will start to burn but it takes time for the wood to burn.

Say you have a 2X6 and ignite it uniformly on all sides, How long does it take to to burn (char) it 1/2in deep all around? at this point you have about a 1X5 which while quite a bit weaker is still there. 
What condition will the aluminum piece be in given the SAME duration of flame impingement?

I know that aircraft members are not made of 2x6s but I hope you get the point. Flames/heat can do a lot more to glues and joints than to solid bits of wood (and cut outs don't help) but there is a difference between setting something on fire and having the same thing structurally fail. 

each design, or even each area of each design is going to respond differently depending on the exact materials, the cross section, the amount of heat both temperature and total btu's and other factors. 

I think that to say one type of construction is always superior to the other is not realistic. Again I am talking about the time from the start of a fire to the point of something failing structurally.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 23, 2009)

For those who are interested, I found this study into the auto ignition properties needed to make certain woods burn

http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v47/v47-13.pdf

The Link attached below is a study into spruce plywood, a major component of the Mosquito. I believe the Mosquito also used hardwod laminar framing, which, depending on the materials used and its moisture content, apparently, has an auto-ignition temperature of around 550-600 C (which I was unaware of until today) 

http://www.doctorfire.com/wood_ign.pdf

The question is, was the Mosquito more prone to failure from incendiary ammunition than any of its metal framed and skinned contemporaries. I know of no studies into this, but neither am I aware of any reports that the Mosquito was an especially flammable airframe to fly. Common sense tells me that the more flammable nature of the material should lead to a greater prpensity to combust, but not by much, and certainly I am not aware of any evidence to support that notion.

So, does anyone have any empirical data, flight test results, combat reports or the like to support this hypothesis


----------



## Erich (Dec 23, 2009)

interviews from 3 of Kurt Welters band flying Me 262A-1a's. the Mossies vaporized under 3cm M HE and HE-I 

pretty chilling


----------



## parsifal (Dec 24, 2009)

I dont doubt that 3cm fire would make a mess of them. But is that worse, or better than a metal framed aircraft. I have seen photos of the sort of damage a single 3cm can do to a B-17......its not pretty. 

I think also that you have to admit that Welters is a bit suspect as a source. He claims 25 kills in his 262, to which the RAF can only confirm the loss of three Mosquitoes in the time specified (or something like that).

I equally dont necessarily accept the non scientific appraisals made by RAF members, that simply describe the type as "rugged" or "tough". It doesnt get to the core of the question in my opinion


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> The wood will start to burn but it takes time for the wood to burn.


And more time for aluminum


Shortround6 said:


> Say you have a 2X6 and ignite it uniformly on all sides, How long does it take to to burn (char) it 1/2in deep all around? at this point you have about a 1X5 which while quite a bit weaker is still there.
> What condition will the aluminum piece be in given the SAME duration of flame impingement?


Again it depends what type of aluminum piece - Casting? Forging? Extrusion? Plate? Sheet? 2024? 2114? 7075? For the most part a piece of 7075 T6 the same size of your wood example will not burn and will probably melt when its eutectic point is reached, and comparing it to a same size piece of wood, (as the sizes you've given) could actually take more than minutes and depending on application and the fire source, hours to completely fail.

The picture are B 757 Nacelle fittings made from 7075 block - they were probably heat treated to T-6 and possibly shot peened and probably have a tensile strength of over 200K (tons) PSI. There is no way you're going to get a piece of wood to have the same properties or have it with better burn properties.




Shortround6 said:


> I know that aircraft members are not made of 2x6s but I hope you get the point. Flames/heat can do a lot more to glues and joints than to solid bits of wood (and cut outs don't help) but there is a difference between setting something on fire and having the same thing structurally fail.


I do get the point - you need to understand how aluminum is made, the type of aluminum alloys that go into structural components and how they are put together. Be it set on fire or taking it a point where it will structurally fail, an aluminum structure will be more resilient to any type of wood.


Shortround6 said:


> each design, or even each area of each design is going to respond differently depending on the exact materials, the cross section, the amount of heat both temperature and total btu's and other factors.


All true, but again we need to specify material


Shortround6 said:


> I think that to say one type of construction is always superior to the other is not realistic. Again I am talking about the time from the start of a fire to the point of something failing structurally.


So am I and I'm telling you from experience you're wrong. I've inspected many a wood aircraft and they could be very troublesome if not properly maintained and stored. I've seen wood aircraft have structural failures that aluminum aircraft would never have and seen leftovers after a crash that resulted in fire. All these reasons are why many manufacturers today stay away from wood and only home builders still use it as a building material.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2009)

parsifal said:


> For those who are interested, I found this study into the auto ignition properties needed to make certain woods burn
> 
> http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v47/v47-13.pdf
> 
> ...



Good info but I couldn't find the reference to spruce plywood


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 24, 2009)

I am not expecting the aluminum, especially in large sections to burn. 

"...same size of your wood example will not burn and will probably melt when its eutectic point is reached"

The aluminum doesn't have to reach it's eutectic point in order to fail structurally. It just has to reach a point at which is strength is considerably diminished. This can be several hundred degrees below it's melting point. 


"So am I and I'm telling you from experience you're wrong. I've inspected many a wood aircraft and they could be very troublesome if not properly maintained and stored. I've seen wood aircraft have structural failures that aluminum aircraft would never have. All these reasons are why many manufacturers today stay away from wood and only home builders still use it as a building material."

I thought we were talking about the different types (materials) of structure and how they might fail under a fire load. There is no doubt that your last three sentences are true but they don't have a lot to do with behavior in a fire do they?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 24, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Good info but I couldn't find the reference to spruce plywood



My mistake...but the intro does refer to spruce, though I am unsure if the data collated refers to this timber. Spruce was an important component to Mosquito airframe construction

I am referring to the second article. If you are interested in materials characteristics, they are worth a look i think 

I am still studying these reports myself, incidentally


----------



## Timppa (Dec 24, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> For the most part a piece of 7075 T6 the same size of your wood example will not burn and will probably melt when its eutectic point is reached, and comparing it to a same size piece of wood, (as the sizes you've given) could actually take more than minutes and depending on application and the fire source, hours to completely fail.



You seem to have the idea that aluminium alloy member has to melt in order to fail.
In reality it will fail long before that, as the yield point is reduced by temperature.
(The twin towers in 911 collapsed when the steel members were weakened by fire, along with additional stresses by thermal expansion, they did not melt.)

PS. This is pretty academic anyway, any aircraft that has a fuel fire is pretty much doomed. In US Navy study 80% of planes that had been hit in fuel system were lost.
I agree that aluminium alloy is the better material for aircraft, but there were some good reasons for using wood in Mosquitos and Russian fighters, and history shows they did just fine.


----------



## Erich (Dec 24, 2009)

parsifal

we never personally interviewed Welter as he died before we could, I mean 3 gents of his unit that flew ops in the jet, all shot down 1-2 Mossies, one of them blew a Mossie NF out of the sky early in the morn.

sure metal or wood it did not matter and is actually really im-material to the whole thread.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 24, 2009)

"Just fine" is a pretty general statement though. History also showed that HE ammunition had a devastating effect on wooden wings when compared to conventional aluminium skins. Sure a 30mm hit will likely be fatal to both, but if hit by a single 20mm HE or even Minengeschoss there's plenty of cases the aluminium wings survived the hit... a plywood wing I guess would shatter and break with a much higher probability. And as far as Soviet planes go, they DID have a lot of problems with their wooden constructions including delamination and so on.


----------



## Erich (Dec 24, 2009)

2cm HE-I M rounds would either tear a wing off or tear the tail off...........interviews by former 10 (N)./JG 300 members flying the Bf 109G-6/AS, it will all be in our book


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not expecting the aluminum, especially in large sections to burn.
> 
> "...same size of your wood example will not burn and will probably melt when its eutectic point is reached"
> 
> The aluminum doesn't have to reach it's eutectic point in order to fail structurally. It just has to reach a point at which is strength is considerably diminished. This can be several hundred degrees below it's melting point.


True - it has to reach a temperature where any heat treat temper is diminished. Ultimate failure will most likely depend on thesize of material and alloying.


Shortround6 said:


> "So am I and I'm telling you from experience you're wrong. I've inspected many a wood aircraft and they could be very troublesome if not properly maintained and stored. I've seen wood aircraft have structural failures that aluminum aircraft would never have. All these reasons are why many manufacturers today stay away from wood and only home builders still use it as a building material."
> 
> I thought we were talking about the different types (materials) of structure and how they might fail under a fire load. There is no doubt that your last three sentences are true but they don't have a lot to do with behavior in a fire do they?


Yes. If we were to paint this discussion with a broad brush, an aircraft with an aluminum primary structure will hold up better to fire and elevated temperatures than wood.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2009)

Timppa said:


> You seem to have the idea that aluminium alloy member has to melt in order to fail.
> In reality it will fail long before that, as the yield point is reduced by temperature.



Read my last post and the example I was giving. I never said "melt" in that statement. An aluminum material such as 7075 may reach its lower eutectic point without melting. Structural failure may already occur, depending on the alloy and material size, that's the point I was making.

Great charts!


----------



## Timppa (Dec 24, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Read my last post and the example I was giving. I never said "melt" in that statement. An aluminum material such as 7075 may reach its lower eutectic point without melting





FLYBOYJ said:


> For the most part a piece of 7075 T6 the same size of your wood example will not burn and will probably melt when its eutectic point is reached!



Sorry, I don't really understand.
1: What is your definition of "eutectic point" ?
2. What's is the relation to strength (defined as yield point or proof stress)?

Merry Christmas btw.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2009)

Timppa said:


> Sorry, I don't really understand.
> 1: What is your definition of "eutectic point" ?
> 2. What's is the relation to strength (defined as yield point or proof stress)?
> 
> Merry Christmas btw.



The eutectic point of a metal is basically where it begins the melting process. The Lower eutectic point may be where one or more of the material's alloying elements have started the process to turn from a solid to liquid. At a material's lower eutectic point, the material may still be in tact but may have begin the process of plasticizing. At that point it has lost most if not all its strength properties if its been previously heat treated. Depending on the type and size of material will determine its strength properties during that period.

And Merry Christmas!


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Aug 10, 2010)

Both the mossie and ju 88 are my favorite aircraft of the war. So far in this post many people have picked the Mosquito over the Ju 88 as the better of the two. In the bomber role, yes the mosquito was better being much faster, but in other roles I would pick the Ju 88. Yes the mosquito was much faster but aircraft like the JU 88C or P had more armor as well as a defensive armament (the fighter bomber variants of the mosquito were slower than the bomber versions), not to mention the Ju 88P did well agianst tanks while the Mosquito Mk. XVIII Tse Tse failed to do so (instead it served as an anti-shipping platform). The mosquito couldn't carry torpedoes, the Ju 88 could carry two, and the Ju 88 was able to dive bomber being more accurate.

In the night fighting role i'd would completely give to the mosquito having better radar as well as being faster. The only variants I think that could have been close to the Mosquito night fighter would be the Ju 88G-7b or c.

In the end the mosquito wins in the Mk XVI, 30 or any other kind late war variant only because the germans were under a lot of pressure and could manufacture more advance variants of the Ju 88 such as the Ju 188 or 388 in enough numbers


----------



## Erich (Aug 10, 2010)

the Ju 88P was experimental in use only never saw action on the Ost Front.

also there was no Ju 88G-7b or c variant this was an RAF after war designation as all known operational Ju 88G's were G-6's by wars end. the G-7 was to be a proposed model in fact they were being built but am not sure what NJG's had them in their line-up


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 10, 2010)

Interesting snippet taken from _Testing Years _by Roland Beamont; p42-3, Junkers Ju88:

At Tangmere in June 1945 the Tactics Branch of the Central Fighter Establishment had access to the Enemy Aircraft Flight and one of the aircraft on their charge was the Ju88 Nightfighter.

_The large paddle-bladed propellers revolved readily and sprang into smooth life with a rumble reminiscent of a vintage car, but this soon changed to a higher-pitched and aggressive noise level as power was increased. In fact, this turned out to be a noisier than expected aeroplane but that was about the only criticism. On initial taxying in the nose-high, tail-down attitude of this tail-wheel aircraft with its tall main undercarriage there was an awkward feeling that it could easily overswing on the turn, especially downwind: but once lined up on the runway the feeling of being in a much larger aeroplane than one's previous experience had practically gone and the 88 felt a compact and well-organised aeroplane.

A short run-up to full power caused the pedal-operated brakes to slip and produced a crescendo of sound that was impressive. I had decided to increase the power progressively on take-off to forestall any unbriefed tendency to swing. This was not necessary and the 88 unstuck at less than full throttle and without any further elevator activity after my initial action to lift the tail conventionally with forward wheel to an appropriate take-off attitude. The initial climb was brisk and I needed to retract the undercarriage before increasing the power to avoid overstepping the undercarriage limit.

Cleaned up, the rate of climb in this light configuration was similar to a Mosquito and the aircraft responded pleasantly to the controls with light ailerons and conventional harmonisation. I noticed that it needed commendably little trimming also, and only when levelling out at 4,000ft and throttling back to cruise at about 230mph* were small tweaks of the elevator and rubber trim switches required.

Rapidly gaining confidence with the aeroplane I tried a few partial rolls, tight turns, rolling pull-outs and dives, climbs and wing-overs; and in all of these the aircraft was stable, responsive and apparently quite viceless except for the noise level which reached crescendo in a dive and was distracting.

Returning towards Tangmere I was about to slow down to look at low speed behaviour when I noticed a Mosquito in the circuit below. Thinking it might be Bob Braham, also a member of the Tactics Branch and the leading exponent of long-range Mosquito fighter tactics, I rolled down toward him and increased power; it was immediately apparent that it was Bob and that he wanted a fight.

The Mosquito wound into the turn in my direction and with full throttle and fine pitch I pulled the 88 into a vertical bank after him. The results were impressive for although I did not know the aircraft it was easy to hold firmly on the opposite side of the circle to the Mosquito and begin to make progress towards getting on his tail. Bob got down to it and took the Mosquito on to its stall boundary with wings rocking perceptably, but I could still see him in my forward arc. I was not far off getting into a firing position but after a number of descending full power turns over Tangmere which had the station out watching, I felt that discretion had to be the better part. I was getting into areas in which I could not possibly know the 88's characteristics so I eased up and out of the turn and Bob was promptly round and on my tail.

This flight and another the next day were enough to show why the 88 was regarded by the Germans as their best large aircraft of WWII. The performance of this nightfighter version when matched against the latest Mosquito of 1945 was remarkable when it is realised that apart from increased power in the nightfighter version, the basic 88 airframe was largely unaltered from the 1940 bomber version._

*British standard ASI fitted for trials

*Below:* Ju88 nightfighter flown at Tangmere in June 1945 _IWM_


----------



## Milosh (Aug 10, 2010)

> The mosquito couldn't carry torpedoes



Do a search for Mosquito TR33. Btw, TR stands for torpedo-reconnaissance.

The Mosquito Mk. XVIII Tse Tse was designed from the get go as an anti shipping a/c for Coastal Command.



> Ju 88P did well agianst tanks



Not from what I have read.


----------



## Erich (Aug 10, 2010)

Colin am not sure which bomber or recon variant that is of the Ju 88 but it is not a night fighter


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 10, 2010)

Erich said:


> Colin am not sure which bomber or recon variant that is of the Ju 88 but it is not a night fighter


Probably
but it's the pic that came with the piece

Here's the only other plate associated with the section. Mottle scheme seems reminiscent of nightfighter livery


----------



## timshatz (Aug 10, 2010)

Good post Colin.


----------



## Erich (Aug 10, 2010)

BMW engines I see the forward antennae is wrong for the Ju 88 NF and the welle camo was also used on Ju 88 bomber andTorpedo bombers confirmed over the med.

looks almost like an A-4 from KG 26 or 77 which both had unusual welle-wave mirror camo's, some pretty wild looking stuff


----------



## Milosh (Aug 10, 2010)

A list of captured German a/c can be found here http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4741

I would say the 1st photo is AM 112 a Junkers Ju88A-6/U - W.Nr.0660 - coded 1H+MN of II./KG26 - scrapped November 1947 as AM 12 is a Siebel.


----------



## jim (Aug 11, 2010)

I would like your help about the JU88 nf speed.The books i posses (Wings of the Luftwaffe,ju88in action,fighters of the luftwaffe,German Night Fighter Aces,...) and the internet readings give me various and controversial informations What i know
Ju88R2 engines BMW801D 1700hp ~580km/h (even with the useless ventral gondola,)
Ju88G1 engines BMW801D 1700hp ~550km/h( gondola removed at last but heavier and with bigger tail surfaces)
Ju88G6 Engines Jumo 213A 1750hp Reports of MW50 use found only in this site Then 2100hp with MW50
Speed (ju88 in action vol2)~ 580km/h with full night equipment
(Wigs of the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown ) Claimed 644km/h at 9145m in a g6 after the war in enland .He was alone in the cocpit and he dont say anything about radar antennas BUT it was certainly without mw50 because in another chapet says that they did not have MW50 or GM1 in enland during the test of captured german aircrafts.
General internet sources give maximum speed ~560-580km/h
In this site i read from the expert Mr Erich speeds in the area of 425m/h (~685km/h!!!) in operations and cruising speeds of 350mph(~555km/h)
JU388J only achieved 580 km/h with BMW801TJ 1800hp high altityde engines (with low drag canopy but the ju 188 wings) I am confused. Could anyone help or suggest a source with recent informations?
By the way some others questions1) The use of Berlin Radar with its cup was expected to fully eliminate the drag penalty (~50km/h)?
2) If G6 was capable of such high speeds why was not used in Mosquito chasing by removiing the radar,transfering the guns in the nose ,remove the gun gondola,the Mg131, the Schrage Music guns,limiting the crew to 2,armor removed,and generally stripe the airframe? It would be of similar performance to BF106G10 and with much longer range
3)Why 2 very similar aircrafts Ju88G,Ju388j were in development the same time? Wouldnt more logical to introduce some of the improvements of 388J(low drag canopy, ju 188 wings) in ju 88g and thus saving resources?
4)Ju88g according to Eric Brown had very extensive cocpit armor (to the point that her weight along the additional electronics offset the additonal horsepowerof the later marks in comparison with ju88a5) but in the reports posted by Mr Erich appears that was not effective against 20mm fire.Was it worth the weight penalty? Wouldnt be better higher agility,rate of climb,and better single engine performance? Mosquito was not that heavily armoured
5)Mr Erich insists that there was noteven projected G7 variant Is it possible that normal G6 airframes were fitted with Jumo 213E Engines? 2050hp but could help against high altitude pathfinders
6)Mr Erich ,if i understood correctly ,the Morgenstern antenna of Fug 220 with its conical cup was useless operationaly?
Thank you in advance


----------



## davebender (Aug 12, 2010)

That's about 5 times as much as I have read elsewhere.


----------



## Erich (Aug 12, 2010)

let me clarify further if I may and I have made note in previous postings for several years that the figures I quoted were through private first person interviews of pilots and crews flying the Ju 88G-6. Mr Erich did not say there was not G-7 just the other day that there was it was being formed into production but as I am aware at this time did not enter NJG service, this could change of course with new data coming in weekly. it was planned to have a G-7 plus variant with E Juno's but the G-6 did not have them.

the crew did not have real armor protection as Mossies could cut through the cockpit with ease with their 20mm's just like the G-6 could on a Mossie with disastrous results, because of the weight ration the Ju 88 was not sued for Mossie chasing duties that was left to the 262 as the Mossies of the LSNF were really a pin prick in the side of the LW hierarchy the main component was to chase down and engage BC 4-Engines where the Ju 88 was desperately needed.

As for Morgenstern I said nothing of the sort it was useless in fact the streamlined nose should of been issued with the FuG 220d as standard and the aerials dispensed with as this would of saved on drag/weight and increased overall speed performance.

the 425 mph figure was of very short duration with added MW 50 boost the crew(s) did not ell me how or why this was used but may have been to allude the Mossie NF's ?


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 12, 2010)

I'm not sure where this is going
all I submitted was an article which was supposed to highlight the ability of the Ju88 if it got into a furball with a Mosquito; the added interest was the fact that the Mosquito was being flown by an acknowledged Mosquito fighter tactician and the Ju88 by a complete novice (on the type).

It may well be that it's not a nightfighter but it's still a Ju88 and the article gives some impression as to why the Germans rated it so highly.


----------



## Erich (Aug 12, 2010)

but let us not forget the pics you added were not the most powerful Ju 88 variant(s), so if competing with a supped up Mossie would you not want a Ju 88 with comparable performance figures in the running ? I think I would to get a true pic of what may have happened to the war. think you can feasibly conclude the JU 88 bomber versions had no chance against he Mossie FB's or fighter version(s) to conclude your statement.

maybe I am adding too much, your article Colin in my estimation is one of value for this thread


----------



## jim (Aug 12, 2010)

The aircraft in the photo posted by Mr Colin1 is a Ju88A6/Uflown in Farnborough in August 1945 .Its basicaly an A4 airframe (jumo 211J engines 1400hp) with ventral gondola deleted(+20km/h) equiped with maritime radar Fug 200(whose antennas caused drag of caurse) Estimated top speed 485-500km/h.(personal opinion) It would be very impressive if that version could turn with a Mosquito of any variant. Ju88 could propably out dive the Mosquito since it was heavier and its airframe strong enough for dive bombing. 
It seems that g6 was more capable than the literature presents. Is there any Book on Ju88 with recent research ?
It seems that even an jumo222 equiped version of the 88 would be of no importance with Germany so badly defeated in electronic war


----------



## Erich (Aug 12, 2010)

the only thing missing from the FuG was the nose array which it needed to search and detect as shown on the A-6/U, although yes the wings were an alternative carry-on as well

there is a book on the Ju 88 all variants in the works in fact it has been going on for over 20 years of research


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 12, 2010)

jim said:


> Mr Erich insists that...





jim said:


> The aircraft in the photo posted by Mr Colin1...


You don't need to prefix our names with Mr
We're a pretty relaxed, informal bunch around each other


----------



## Juha (Aug 12, 2010)

Hello Colin
the plane Beamont flew was the famous Ju88G-1 4R+UR, at least according his Tempest over Europe and his artcle in AM around 1990.

Juha


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 12, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Colin
> the plane Beamont flew was the famous Ju88G-1 4R+UR, at least according his Tempest over Europe and his article in AM around 1990


Understood
clearly some mix-up somewhere but it's depicted in _Testing Years_ as a nightfighter


----------



## Milosh (Aug 12, 2010)

Erich said:


> but let us not forget the pics you added were not the most powerful Ju 88 variant(s), so if competing with a supped up Mossie would you not want a Ju 88 with comparable performance figures in the running ? I think I would to get a true pic of what may have happened to the war. think you can feasibly conclude the JU 88 bomber versions had no chance against he Mossie FB's or fighter version(s) to conclude your statement.



Was not this the case with the Mosquito - P-61 flyoff? The Mosquito, afaik, was a NFII and not the NF30 which was entering squadron service at the time of the flyoff (June '44).

Personally I think this was deliberate on the part of the British so as not to embarrass the P-61.


----------



## davebender (Aug 12, 2010)

I'm under the impression that AI equipped German night fighters had little difficulty locating enemy aircraft right up to the end of the war. For instance 277 Lancaster bombers attacked Nuremberg on the night of 16/17 March 1945. Oberleutnant Erich Jung found and shot down 8 of those bombers, which has to be close to a night fighter record for a single sortie.


----------



## Erich (Aug 12, 2010)

how about 4 of those bombers while the others he attacked made it back to England Dave. LW accounts vary about the truth.... see Dr. Boitens masterful work on the Nachtjagd- 2 volumes

the Nachtjagd would still home onto emissions from BC radar sets by using the directional FuG 350Z Naxos while the FuG 220d sets would possibly be jammed and as former LW night crews have said also they would home onto the strongest presence of Window being dropped then they new they were in contact.

It's all very interesting yet confusing to the end.


----------



## Juha (Aug 12, 2010)

Hello Colin
G-1 was definitely a night fighter.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Aug 13, 2010)

> how about 4 of those bombers while the others he attacked made it back to England


Whether the bombers were shot down or only damaged is beyond the point. It appears to me that Luftwaffe AI and other night fighter electronic equipment worked just fine right to the end of the war. WWII Germany was not defeated in electronics warfare.


----------



## Erich (Aug 13, 2010)

you have to give credit to the LW Bordfünkers and pilots to get within the BC system, as I said the standard FuG 220d set was jammed in 45 and the FuG 218 as well later in the spring of 45 so the Berlin 240A-1 was the only unit not so with only about 30 sets completed/possibly delivered. Mentioning of getting through the window and where it was picked up the strongest on the existing sets gave prrof to the German crews this is where the BC bombers were located at least in the area. BC command was quite adept at spoofing the German LW in fact in many cases in 45 the LW night fighters were informed to go in the wrong direction from ground control due to effective feints


----------



## parsifal (Aug 13, 2010)

There were many occasions right to the end that LW night fighters found their marks and successfully pressed home their attacks. But for any number of reasons, RAF loss rates had reduced steadily throughout the last year of the war, from a crippling 7% to under 1%. How you prioritise the reasons for that drop in losses is open to debate, but in my view the reasons include allied EW, lask of fuel, loss of the early warning ground stations, decline in pilot efficiency, sheer numbers. There are lots of other reasons


----------



## Erich (Aug 14, 2010)

important points P ~ but in the spring of 45 some of the Nachtjagd was ordered and even the experten to terrible day/night ground attack duties flying both on the west and also to the East to keep the Soviets away from Berlin this had now become the priority for the LW in general. the single engine 109's not being able to hold their own against BC Mossies were dumped with the old 2cm waffen pods under each wing and attacked railroad crossing and MT junctions with fervor, but as noted in losses had no chance during the day being shot down by US fighters


----------

