# Me-210C vs Me-410A



## davebender (Oct 13, 2009)

The discussion on DB603 engine availability during 1943 has got me wondering if the Luftwaffe made a mistake manufacturing the Me-410A rather then the Me-210C/D (i.e. Hungarian version. Bugs have been fixed.)

*Me-210C. *
2 x 1,475hp DB605 engines.
5,440kg empty weight. .54 hp per kg.

*Me-410A.*
2 x 1,750hp DB603 engines.
6,100kg empty weight. .57hp per kg.

The Me-410A has more powerful engines but it is also heavier. Power to weight ratio is not much better. 1943 Germany is producing plenty of DB605 engines so the Me-210C/D would not have to wait in line for scarce DB603 engines.


----------



## Maximowitz (Oct 13, 2009)

As much as I love both those aircraft neither should have been produced and engine production streamlined for single engine fighters. If the 210 had been in service as scheduled it would have been a useful aircraft, but by '42 it was virtually worthless.


----------



## davebender (Oct 13, 2009)

I don't know about that. The 2 December 1943 air stike on Bari, Italy shows that German light bombers could dish out serious damage even late in the war. In that particular bombing raid the attacking aircraft were Ju-88s. However they could just as easily have been Me-210Cs.

Air Raid on Bari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The Air Raid on Bari was an air attack on Allied forces and shipping in Bari, Italy by Nazi German bombers on December 2, 1943. In the attack, 105 German Junkers Ju 88 bombers of Luftflotte 2, achieving complete surprise, bombed Allied shipping and personnel operating in support of the Allied Italian campaign, sinking 17 cargo and transport ships in Bari harbor.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 13, 2009)

Didn't the 210 fail on stabilty at its axis' and the corrections were eventually modelled into the 410?

I believe at this point in the war (1943) Germany needed as many single engine fighters and not raids like Bari. That was a mistake IMHO


----------



## vanir (Oct 13, 2009)

Several units were operating the Me210A-1, A-2 and B at Sicily and Tunisia in 1942-43 after the fuselage/flap fix that solved its handling problems. Consider that the DB-601F has the same performance as a derated DB-605A at that time, with only a slightly reduced critical altitude between the two engines and of course the 601F is far more reliable until the 605 underwent some fixes later.
What they did however, was wherever possible convert to Ju-88 variants in preference, which reduced losses so during 1943 squadrons like 10./ZG26 and 2.(F)/122 had abandoned Me210's received only six months earlier for Ju88's before finally converting to Me410. Clearly the Ju88 was preferred by field units given the choice.
Me210 elsewhere, in units like ZG1 were replaced by Me410 as they became available. It wasn't just the performance, brake failure and gear failures were common in Me210 production leading to frequent runway mishaps, it was at type which simply had both the reputation and service record of being absolutely plagued with problems.

As mentioned there was really very little potential for performance change between the 601F and 605B engines particularly as the 605A/B was derated to max 1.35atm for start u-notleistung until mid43. Even from this time the performance difference is really about 100hp at take off and slightly improved critical altitude, which is not much use at typical combat altitude.
The 605 is basically an overbored 601 and has higher demands on the base engine and its anciliaries for this. Its development as a high performance aero engine was never really complete until the D version with its new combustion chambers, piston crowns and supercharger.

An Me210 fitted with 605D engines would be something.

The 603 motors are a different kettle of fish, an entirely new engine block and technically speaking they're really designed for light bombers and twin engine a/c in the first place. It's not so much the power-weight so long as it's comparable to the 210 but it's a lot like comparing cars, a Ford Mustang with a small block engine and one with a big block. In terms of balance and power-weight the small block is actually quicker on a tight track, but doesn't even come close in a race across the continent. On an open field with all else equal, the saying in motorsport is you can't beat cubic inches.

The 603A develops a lazy 1750PS I mean that's without even trying, it's got 1600PS just cruising around on steig u-kampfleistung for half the mission. There's no real comparison. Critical altitude is the same, loadbearing up, climb rate much higher, sustained manoeuvres much more easily, and all this at the normal power settings without even pulling out all the stops.
I'm sure it's a totally different experience to pilot, much more like a lightweight Ju88 than an up-engined Me210 I'll bet.

Then the Me410B probably often used the 603Aa engine fitment which has a 7km critical altitude. I believe 603E high altitude variations of the 603G (1900PS) motor were planned but I don't think it ever entered production. This would be what the Me109G-14/AS was to the Me109F when compared to the Me210 I think, where the change to the DB-605 is more like a G-6.

Compare the combat/pilot reports of the Me109F-4 in particular to the G-2 who's sparkling debut was killing Marsielle. In detailed analysis particularly once the 605A was derated there is no appreciable gain over the F-4 with its much more reliable and similar performing 601E motor. Everybody liked the Friedrich better until the 605D finally came on the scene. The performance difference between 109F and G models is almost invariably assumed between comparisons of F-2 (601N motor) and G-2 where indeed a notable 20km/h speed and 1.5km critical altitude difference exists. But the 601E with its 1.42atm start u-notleistung doesn't really give anything away on the G-2, mostly any performance gain is taken up with extra weight in the later model.
Now compare either of them wth a Ta152C, that's got a DB-603.

Anyways that's my thoughts.


----------



## Maximowitz (Oct 14, 2009)

davebender said:


> I don't know about that. The 2 December 1943 air stike on Bari, Italy shows that German light bombers could dish out serious damage even late in the war. In that particular bombing raid the attacking aircraft were Ju-88s. However they could just as easily have been Me-210Cs.
> 
> Air Raid on Bari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Well, yes they could have been. But I don't think that what might have been is indicative of potential. I could list a quite remarkable amount of data about how poorly received the 210 was but I think my fingers couldn't take all that typing.

There was one area where the 410 was sucessful though and could have been more so had wiser heads prevailed..


----------



## davebender (Oct 14, 2009)

> The 603A develops a lazy 1750PS I mean that's without even trying, it's got 1600PS just cruising around on steig u-kampfleistung for half the mission. There's no real comparison. Critical altitude is the same, loadbearing up, climb rate much higher, sustained manoeuvres much more easily, and all this at the normal power settings without even pulling out all the stops.


I agree with this. All other things being equal, the DB603 is superior to the DB605. However all other things were not equal. 1943 Germany did not have enough DB603 engines to go around but they had plenty of DB605 engines. Using DB605 engines for the Me-210C/D gives you a small but acceptable performance decrease. In return you can build the Me-210C/D light bomber in greater numbers as there are plenty of DB605 engines available. You can also build 500 or so Fw-190Cs using DB603 engines which historically powered the Me-410s built during 1943.


----------



## Juha (Oct 14, 2009)

Hello Dave
was there plenty of DB 605s available when we take account those needed to the main day and night fighters of LW, namely Bf 109G and Bf 110G. 

And as a night bomber a la Bari, Ju 88 was able to carry clearly heavier bomb load and had a bomb aimer.

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 14, 2009)

vanir said:


> ...
> Compare the combat/pilot reports of the Me109F-4 in particular to *the G-2 who's sparkling debut was killing Marsielle.*
> ....



Couldn't agree more.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 14, 2009)

As for the questions of he thread (210 vs. 410), my take is that LW should've produced the 109Z. Yep, the Me-109 hulls mated together, therefore canceling the 110-210-410 line all together ASAP.


----------



## davebender (Oct 14, 2009)

If you want a twin engine day fighter then Germany can put the Fw-187 into mass production during 1940. It should be quite a rocket when powered by a pair of 1,350 hp DB601E engines. 

However this has nothing to do with the Me-210 light bomber. 8)


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 14, 2009)

Actually, it has a lot to do with 210, as well as the 110 and 410.

The heavy Messerschmidts were served to be heavy fighters/zerstoeres, light bombers and night fighters. The Bf-109Z was to have top speed of almost 700km/h plenty of cannons, making him more than fit to take it at anything with prop mounted.
It was supouse to have a decent bomb load too, and with crew and radar disposal a la P-82 it would've make a better night fighter then anything Germans had in numbers.

Almost forgot: since the 109 is already in the production, producing the 109Z version should've been a no-brainer (same for maintenance), contrary to the production of Fw-187. Not that I don't like the Falke


----------



## Civettone (Oct 14, 2009)

The Me 210C is one of my favourite subjects. 
I believe this was the missing link and a missed opportunity, It could have been the standard night fighter and tactical bomber of the Luftwaffe. It could have replaced the Bf 110 on the production lines (once again) but also the Ju 88. It could carry a bigger internal payload than the Ju 88 anyway. Multiseat bombers were on their way out. The British realised this with the Mosquito and at the end of the war all (medium) bomber designs were for a crew of 2 or 3. 

My sig shows the Bf 109Z so sure enough I am a fan of this one. Though as a bomber it would never succeed: the payload would be carried externally and would probably never exceed 1000 kg. Also the range would be limited. The Bf 109Z could well have been the perfect bomber Zerstoerer, faster than the American escort fighters. Also as a Jabo but not as a bomber.

Kris


----------



## davebender (Oct 14, 2009)

> since the 109 is already in the production, producing the 109Z version should've been a no-brainer


It's not quite as simple as fastening two Me-109Gs together. The center wing section will be unique and the cockpit will be different as you need to accomodate instruments for two engines. The jury rigged Me-109Z may work but I suspect the Fw-187 would perform better and cost no more to produce. The Fw-187 is also production ready practically from the begining of the war.

Back to the main topic....
What could Oberst Rudel accomplish if his Geschwader flew the Me-210C ILO the Ju-87?


----------



## Juha (Oct 14, 2009)

Hello Kris
LW found out that Me 410 was unsuitable for night fighter duties, so it would have been surprising if Me 210Ca would have been successful in that role.

Now British tried to develop a new medium bomber but Warwik was a failure. So they had to rely on US types like B-25 and B-26. And produced old Wimpys to the end of the war.

Hello Tomo
IMHO the problem in early 109Gs was the engine, not the airframe. G airframe was more suited for multi-role jobs and it had stiffer wings, which was good in high speed manoeuvres.

Juha


----------



## Maximowitz (Oct 15, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Kris
> LW found out that Me 410 was unsuitable for night fighter duties, so it would have been surprising if Me 210Ca would have been successful in that role.




On the contrary, in the role of Fernnachtjager it was very successful. NJG 1 evaluated a couple of examples for night defence of the reich but it was deemed unsuitable due to the canopy glazing design and lack of room for AI radar equipment. A redesign was to be undertaken but events overtook this.

The usual argument trotted out about the 410's lack of suitability as a nightfighter is the high wing loading and high landing speed needing a very long runway facility.


----------



## Juha (Oct 15, 2009)

Hello Maximowitz
as I wrote NJG 1 and LW’s night fighting specialists found it unsuitable. On KG 2 and KG 51 night intruder missions; peanuts, I would say. And were those missions very successful depends how one defines “very successful”.

Juha


----------



## Maximowitz (Oct 15, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Maximowitz
> as I wrote NJG 1 and LW’s night fighting specialists found it unsuitable. On KG 2 and KG 51 night intruder missions; peanuts, I would say. And were those missions very successful depends how one defines “very successful”.
> 
> Juha



I would say Mission 311 was fairly successful wouldn't you?


----------



## Juha (Oct 15, 2009)

Hello Maximowitz
As we say here in Finland, ”one swallow doesn’t bring summer”. If one compare the kills achieved by Me 410 intruders to those achieved by proper night fighters, IMHO the achievements of 410s were insignificant. Also I cannot recall any real impact on BC operations achieved by 410s, that’s what I meant when I wrote peanuts. And Oper. Gisela showed that Ju 88s could do exactly same if not more. Mossie intruders on the other hand had a real impact on LW night fighter operations, so that I’d call very successful operations, the early Beaufighter intruders had some successes, for ex shooting down four LW night fighter aces in one night but its general effect was limited.
Juha


----------



## davebender (Oct 15, 2009)

I don't believe in this "one aircraft type performs all missions" way of thinking. That's how Germany got stuck with the Me-110 which was marginally good at everything but really good at nothing. If Germany places the Me-210C into mass production it should be optimized as a light bomber. The Me-210C would replace the Ju-87D in dive bomber units.


----------



## vanir (Oct 15, 2009)

How about a Heinkel Grief produced in 1943 with four DB-605 engines instead? Shuttle Fw190A for escorts. This DB-610 business was just silly and later in 1944 you could swap the 605 for four 603.

The big change in the war climate from independent air operations to strictly army support was due to the Stalingrad debarcle and subsequent turnarounds on the Eastern Front. If that was put aside so that you still had a Luftwaffe functioning as it did in 1942 then the heavy bomber arm is the notable lacking for the Luftwaffe.

But the way I understand it was the change in the war climate reduced the effective potential of the heavy fighters used as fast bombers because only something like an Fw190 fighter-bomber could survive the battlefield. Even in a vanilla example like the pin prick raids against England it was only the Fw190 which had a decent survivability (unless the Me410 were actually following bombers home so didn't set off the interception protocols), typically say two staffeln of Luftwaffe raiders would be intercepted by at least as many RAF interceptors on point, like a mix of Typhoons, MkIX Spits and whatever experimental squadrons were handy like Griffon Spits, it seems much of the time the FW's were lucky to get away with it, I dare say extended raids by things like Me210C would find themselves suffering terrible attrition by 1944.

And that doesn't deal with the Eastern Front where typical Luftwaffe operations faced 4 to 1 odds or worse of models often equivalent to their very best types, La5FN, Yak-9 and P-39N say during 1943. I often read that following June 1943 the Luftwaffe was completely incapable of winning even local air superiority on the Eastern Front. That's gotta spell disaster for any attack model short of the current Fw190A/F models which served to largely replace the Ju87D in the newly formed schlachtgeschwader. The war climate is probably why the emphasis on the Fw190A became the development of the Fw190F and G, the fact it was better suited to carrying heavy stores for combat worthy distances than the Me109.
I'd say the RLM was interested in the Me210/410 by 1944 only as a bomber destroyer, and when the toll was taken on them by escort fighters is when they were pulled from service and production stopped.

The Me210C was really competing with the Fw190A here, and the main consideration was the climate of war and no chance of achieving any air superiority over the battlefield. The heavy fighter didn't stand a chance.

And if you changed those circumstances, then I suggest the heavy bomber program would've been a better use of surplus DB-605 engines. I think the Me210/410 was a luxury by 1943 and like the Me110 in 1941 had no real place. But given a small environment where local air superiority could be maintained, like the Me110E/F had some success tank busting with the Mk101 in Africa, the Me210C might've been a nice luxury for specialised attack and fast bomber work. Luxury I think. The Ju88 could do it well, and there were many other areas lacking.

What do you think?


----------



## davebender (Oct 15, 2009)

> How about a Heinkel Grief produced in 1943 with four DB-605 engines


Would performance be adequate with 4 x single DB605 engines? The historical He-277 was supposed to have 4 of the scarce DB603 engines.

Just produce the historical Ju-288C. It uses coupled DB605 engines (i.e. DB610 engine). It's my understanding that Junkers learned from Heinkel's mistakes with the He-177 program so the coupled engines should be reliable. Performance (for a WWII era bomber) is superb.

*Ju-288C*
WRG - Luftwaffe Resource Group - Junkers Ju 288
407mph max speed.
3,000kg bomb bay. Plus up to 2,000kg external.
1,616 mile range with max internal bomb load.
Decent defensive armament.
.....2 x 15mm MG in front remote control barbette
.....2 x 15mm MG in rear remote control barbette
.....2 x 15mm MG in dorsal barbette.
.....1 x 20mm cannon in tail.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 15, 2009)

Juha said:


> Now British tried to develop a new medium bomber but Warwik was a failure. So they had to rely on US types like B-25 and B-26. And produced old Wimpys to the end .
> 
> Juha



The Warwick was actually a heavy bomber in the "Manchester" mold. While it did share some parts with the Wellington it was 8ft longer, 10ft more wing span and 166sq ft more wing area. The 45,000lb gross take off weight kind of puts it out of the medium class also.


----------



## Maximowitz (Oct 15, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Maximowitz
> As we say here in Finland, ”one swallow doesn’t bring summer”. If one compare the kills achieved by Me 410 intruders to those achieved by proper night fighters, IMHO the achievements of 410s were insignificant. Also I cannot recall any real impact on BC operations achieved by 410s, that’s what I meant when I wrote peanuts. And Oper. Gisela showed that Ju 88s could do exactly same if not more. Mossie intruders on the other hand had a real impact on LW night fighter operations, so that I’d call very successful operations, the early Beaufighter intruders had some successes, for ex shooting down four LW night fighter aces in one night but its general effect was limited.
> Juha




Hi Juha, Helsinki eh? I've got as far as Sweden but never did the crossing from Stockholm to Helsinki much to my regret. I really must visit...hello Ryanair!

I certainly agree with you regards the "one swallow" viewpoint. However that's not really the fault of KG 2 and KG 51... the whole Fernnachtjager idea being halted by Hitler in 41, NJG 2 being sent to the med and the "territorial pissing" of Schmid and Peltz over who was in charge of what was abysmally shortsighted. It allowed Bomber Command to build up their forces virtually unmolested. I'm not one for speculation (you may have noticed) but given the right aircraft at the right time, the right tactics and an aggresive posture BC might have found it a lot more difficult to mount a methodical bombing campaign.

True enough about the Ju 88. ..but you use what you have when you have it. Peltz was never keen on the 410 anyway, but the politics and rival factions played their part too.


----------



## Juha (Oct 15, 2009)

Hello Vanir
I agree all but
Quote:” I often read that following June 1943 the Luftwaffe was completely incapable of winning even local air superiority on the Eastern Front. That's gotta spell disaster for any attack model short of the current Fw190A/F models which served to largely replace the Ju87D in the newly formed schlachtgeschwader”

I know for sure that Kampfverband Kuhlmey ( a Gruppe of Ju 87Ds, a Gruppe of Fw 190As, a Staffel of Fw 190F/Gs and a Staffel of Bf 109G-8s) could operate during Summer 44 over Karelia Isthmus using Ju 87s in massed attacks, they operated also in Baltic. Also Finnish AF could operate with Do 17Zs, Blenheims, DB-3s and Ju 88As under protection of FAF’s f 109Gs without losing, meaning a total loss, a single escorted bomber to Soviet fighters over the Isthmus. Even if Soviet AFs employed at max. over 1500 a/c there.

Hello Dave
For some reason LW dumped the Ju 288.

Hello Shortrouns
Well it depends how one sees it, B-26B max loaded 35 000lb, B-25H some 36 000lb, Lancaster Mk I and Halifax Mk III, max 65 000 lb. But of course you are right if we looked the British definition of Warwick when the project was initiated.

Hello Maximowitz
At least we have good a/c and tank museums, exhibits from many different countries. But so has UK, have been there well over dozen times.

Yes, you are right in that KG 2 and 51 had to use what was available. And yes, intruder missions when their achievements reached a certain point began produce results much more significant than what was the actual material damage they produced.

Juha


----------



## Civettone (Oct 15, 2009)

The standard Me 410 was unsuited for night fighting, sure. But I have a late 1944 document somewhere showing where the radar equipment would go in the Me 410. It's clear that they were thinking on using the Me 410 as a night fighter. So why didn't they?
Cockpit glazing? This could easily been changed. High wing loading and long runways? Not very convincing as the Me 410 was quite often used by night as a pathfinder or as the night fighter without radar equipment. Also in 1945 the Me 262 (and Ar 234?) was considered to be succesful as a night fighter yet it must have needed an even longer runway. 
I think the problem is that air crews will always have a suspicion towards new high performance aircraft. I remember pilots in Korea complaining that their jets were unsuited for ground attacks because they flew too fast. Hot rod aircraft usually have worse flying characteristics than the older generation aircraft. Only when success follows do they agree that the change was the right thing. 
There is one main reason though why the Me 410 was not modified sooner. It's clearly because of the Moskito night fighter! The Germans wanted to get rid of these interim fighter types and wanted a dedicated night fighter. This were the promising Moskito and Uhu to replace the Bf 110 and Ju 88. Both were disappointing. So in hindsight the Me 210C would have been the better choice. 

It's also important to think about war economics. Using less types means a bigger production of those aircraft. That goes for the Me 210C instead of the Bf 110G as there is no reason to have both types. And it goes for the Bf 109Z. Someone said the Falke would have been a better choice but this is unrealistic. Production is the most important element in a war. Russians and Americans realized this. That means you dont always have the best weapon but you have more of them. The Germans could have and should have done with fewer types. They realized this too late, only after Speer took over. They could have done with the Bf 109, Me 210C/410, He 177, Hs 129 for pretty much every combat operation (in 1943/1944)... All other types were luxury. 

Kris


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 15, 2009)

(Sorry for skewing the thread a bit, Dave)



Juha said:


> Hello Tomo
> IMHO the problem in early 109Gs was the engine, not the airframe. G airframe was more suited for multi-role jobs and it had stiffer wings, which was good in high speed manoeuvres.
> 
> Juha



Juha, sorry If you've misunderstood me. The G-2 was the plane that carried Marseille to death, but the on-board DB-605 was the guilty one.

The DB-601s carried Marseille in victories


----------



## davebender (Oct 15, 2009)

If the Me-210C enters mass production I assume it would use factories historically employed by the Me-110 and Ju-87. That would give you quite a bit of production capacity. It also removes two obsolecent aircraft types from service.


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 15, 2009)

I don't really understand the point of either aircraft. If you want to intercept bombers a cannon armed FW190 or ME109 could do the job, there were better planes available for light bombing roles...as a NF the Me110 was already enjoying some success whilst being replaced by the even better JU-88...

The Mosquito was the type of plane they needed and they had their own version of that concept in the Ju-88


----------



## paradoxguy (Oct 16, 2009)

Watanbe said:


> I don't really understand the point of either aircraft. If you want to intercept bombers a cannon armed FW190 or ME109 could do the job, there were better planes available for light bombing roles...as a NF the Me110 was already enjoying some success whilst being replaced by the even better JU-88...
> 
> The Mosquito was the type of plane they needed and they had their own version of that concept in the Ju-88



I know and apologize I am going off point here, but Watanbe's comment about the Ju 88 touched on a question I've long had about it. I've seen performance specs published on the nightfighter Ju 88G-1 and Ju 88G-7, as well as the Ju 88C-6, but I've not seen any descriptions regarding how these actually handled and performed. For those in the know, how did the Ju 88C-6 and Ju 88G-series perform? Were they maneuverable? Did they handle well? How did their crews regard them compared to the Me 110 and He 219? How did the Ju 88G-series compare to the Mosquito nightfighters?

Thanks for reading and any input.


----------



## vanir (Oct 16, 2009)

I don't have pilot reports handy, I'll look some up. For those who may not be familiar with the types you mentioned...

IV/NJG6 operated some Ju88G-7 in their lineup which is often regarded as the single best performing German nightfighter, some 50km/h faster than the He219A, with a "clean" configuration of 4 MG151 in the nose and two more MG151 in a shrage musik (belly packs or nose armament changes could be made but these would impact performance), but only a few examples of this version were ever produced due to the limited availability of its engines, a pair of Jumo 213E with MW50 (rated at 1880PS in the 8km altitude range under full boost). I can't speak about the actual service record of these a/c though, only that they're awesome on paper. More than 640km/h is the claimed top speed.

Two things are fairly likely however. The third gear of the 213E was known to be unreliable for MW50 operation (it tended to keep kicking back to a lower gear and actually losing performance), so whilst its critical altitude is very good for cruise (it'd have a very nice 8-9km normal cruise at a good 1200hp or so, say a lazy 610km/h), in actual combat you'd want to be 5-6km altitude for sustained manoeuvring. That's okay because that's typical bomber height in Europe at night, slightly lower even. At 5km the Ju88G-7 would be deadly. I think the actual top speed in service is about 625km/h clean, but I think this a/c would probably break 600km/h at 5000 metres using MW50 which is tremendous speed at that height and very effective for its job.

Next comes the He219A for performance. Critical altitude is 7-8km and that's its best performance height and so is pretty much anything under that, so it's a killer with those DB-603A or Aa motors. Plus it's very streamlined and handles extremely well. Top speed is claimed as 585km/h at the FTH but the DB603 loves the medium altitudes as well so you'll get close to maximum level speed at high altitude, down at around 5000 metres where the action is.

The Ju88G-1 with its BMW801D-2 motors is another toughy, loses some critical altitude to the previous two aircraft but again these motors are very well designed for terrific performance at around 5000 metres, so it wouldn't actually give anything away to them at this height. Top speed is 575km/h at 6000 metres, so it'll probably still do something like 570 at 5000m. That's deadly.

Everything else can barely manage 500km/h at any height with any engine fitment and makes up for this by mounting really heavy firepower, particularly banks of four MG151 or two Mk108 shrage musik so it doesn't need to attack on the climb, or even boom and zoom, it can cruise at high alt, then dive to intercept, move under the target, fire upwards on the way past (using dive speed), go to the next target and work its way through the group.
In the case of the Me110G-4 from what I've read they couldn't even match the bombers performance at the bomber's altitude at all, so had to attack from a lower altitude whatever happened. The way I read it was according to one nightfighter pilot, the lack of any belly defensive armament on the RAF bombers was a real bonus, but they would've had to attack from the underside anyway in his Me110, because it wasn't fast enough to attack from behind when weighted as a nightfighter. It simply couldn't catch the bombers.


----------



## Juha (Oct 16, 2009)

Hello Paradox
88G was very maneuverable, read for ex Eric Brown’s assessment. And even Beaumont, who nobody could accuse to have been pro-German, or any other pro but Hawker and EE, was highly impressed by the maneuverability of Ju 88G he flew in Summer 45. One can read Beaumont’s assessment from a article in one Aeroplane Monthly published very early 90s or from one of his books in which we tells his impressions on the a/c he flew during Summer 45, British, German and US, not surprising he found that Tempest was the best. But as I wrote he got very positive impression on Ju 88G. I can dig out the name of the book or the number of the AM in which the article is, if you are interested in.

Hello Vanir
I doubt that that if a Bf 110G was unable to catch a bomber it would have been able maneuver some 100m under one to proper shooting position for Schräge Musik attack, which if used normal Schräge Musik attack flight path means also some climbing. But the speed margin of Bf 11G-4 with all those black boxes and antennas over Lanc or Hali flying at max cruising speed was rather narrow and so closing speed for stern attack might have been too low to some pilots liking.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Oct 16, 2009)

I'm under the impression the Ju-88 series has shot down more aircraft at night then any other night fighter in history. That's good enough for me. 

*1943 Ju-88 production.*
German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2,160 bombers.
706 night fighters
394 recon aircraft

1943 Germany produced more then enough Ju-88s to equip the entire night fighter force. Just build 1,000 fewer of the bomber versions. Some bomber units currently equipped with the Ju-88 would convert to either the Do-217 (medium bomber units) or Me-210C (light bomber units). There would be no Do-217 night fighters.


----------



## Maximowitz (Oct 16, 2009)

paradoxguy said:


> For those in the know, how did the Ju 88C-6 and Ju 88G-series perform? Were they maneuverable? Did they handle well? How did their crews regard them compared to the Me 110 and He 219? How did the Ju 88G-series compare to the Mosquito nightfighters?
> 
> Thanks for reading and any input.



Hi Paradox Guy,

I asked a similar question to Hptm. Peter Spoden of I./NJG 6 and he said he prefered the G-6 to the 110 but would have wanted the 219 given a choice. Personal tastes I guess.


----------



## paradoxguy (Oct 18, 2009)

Thanks much to all who responded to my questions on the Ju 88 nightfighter and its performance. I learned more from them than I have from books and other written sources. I appreciated the amount of detail from Vanir and Juha and also appreciated Maximowitz's recollection of Peter Spoden's preferences and Davebender's production stats. Vanir and Juha, I appreciate your offers to look up pilot reports and the name of Beaumont's books discussing the Ju 88G respectively and look forward to the information if you could.

Just one more comment...I recall reading that when Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer became the Kommodore of NJG4, he decided to keep his Bf 110G-4 instead of switching to the Ju 88G that the rest of the unit flew. I suppose this was a case of Schnaufer flying what he was familiar with.

Thanks much again!


----------



## Juha (Oct 18, 2009)

Hello Paradox
The book is: Roland Beamont: Tempest over Europe. Airlife Publishing Ltd. 1994 ISBN 1 85310 452 3. Ju 88G-1, LW code 4R + UR, RAF code NF. TP190 was the plane he flew, his description on the flights are on pp. 123-8.

On Schnaufer, maybe or simply it was question of different tastes. Pilots weighted differently various flight characteristics of the planes and so ended up prefer different planes.

Juha


----------



## Civettone (Oct 19, 2009)

Watanbe said:


> I don't really understand the point of either aircraft. If you want to intercept bombers a cannon armed FW190 or ME109 could do the job, there were better planes available for light bombing roles...as a NF the Me110 was already enjoying some success whilst being replaced by the even better JU-88...
> 
> The Mosquito was the type of plane they needed and they had their own version of that concept in the Ju-88


That post put a frown on my face ... 
Ju 88 being somewhat equal to the Mosquito is a thought which is hard to digest. Germans were appaled by the British Mosquito intruder missions. Even day fighters had problems catching them. I have already made a point about the Mosquito being superior to the Ju 88 in every field but one can debate about this. The clear part is however the Mosquito night fighter. As Erich regularly points out, German night fighter crews were terrified of the Mosquito, holding on the rear gunner for self protection while a rear gunner was being given up on all but bombers. 

I have seen some performance figures of the Ju 88G. Especially those of the Ju 88G-6 and -7 are impressive but honestly: when did they become operational? And in which numbers? The Ju 88C which couldnt even get to a freakin 500 kmh was the main Ju 88 night fighter until early 1944 !!! After that the Ju 88G-1 started to complement the Ju 88R. So be careful in comparing the Bf 110 with the Ju 88: the Bf 110 had to soldier on with the DB 605 while the Ju 88 started to receive more powerful engines. 

To get back on the subject, the Bf 110 was to be replaced by the Ta 154 Moskito, that was to be the German Mosquito. And definitely not the Ju 88 which was more a long-distance night fighter and to be replaced by the bigger He 219. For local defence the Ta 154 was the weapon of choice. Only when it completely failed to live up to expectations - the bombing of the glue factory had nothing to do with that - did the Me 410 come into the picture again. 
And that's what you have to compare with the Ju 88. The Ju 88G and Me 410 had once again a similar power output, just like the Bf 110G and Ju 88C before. But the Me 410 would lose 20 kmh which means it would still fly at 600 kmh which is 25 kmh faster than the Ju 88G. Plus, the Me 410 could fly as far as the Ju 88. And was the Ju 88 as manouevrable as the Me 410? Was the Ju 88 manouevrable, or did they mean manoeuvrable for its size??

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Oct 19, 2009)

vanir said:


> In the case of the Me110G-4 from what I've read they couldn't even match the bombers performance at the bomber's altitude at all, so had to attack from a lower altitude whatever happened. The way I read it was according to one nightfighter pilot, the lack of any belly defensive armament on the RAF bombers was a real bonus, but they would've had to attack from the underside anyway in his Me110, because it wasn't fast enough to attack from behind when weighted as a nightfighter. It simply couldn't catch the bombers.


Vanir, given the very high overall quality of your posts, I am surprised by this. It doesn't seem to make any sense. Too slow, so they attack from below?? 


Kris


----------



## Juha (Oct 20, 2009)

Hello Civettone
according to Beamont’s book when he tried a simulated ex tempore dogfight with Mosquito flown by Bob Braham, lightly loaded Ju 88G-1 was more or less equal to Braham’s new Mossie at low level. So in those conditions Ju88G-1 was probably more manouvrable than Me 410.

Juha


----------



## Civettone (Oct 20, 2009)

So how manoeuvrable was the Me 410 then?  


Kris


----------



## Milosh (Oct 20, 2009)

> For local defence the Ta 154 was the weapon of choice. Only when it completely failed to live up to expectations - the bombing of the glue factory had nothing to do with that - did the Me 410 come into the picture again.



Can you elaborate on your Ta154 comment Civettone.


----------



## davebender (Oct 20, 2009)

What does dogfighting have to do with WWII era night fighters?


----------



## Juha (Oct 20, 2009)

Hello Civettone
when I’ll have spare time I’ll check but IIRC also Eric Brown used superlatives when he described maneuverability of 88G but not when he descripted maneuverability of Me 410. That doesn’t mean that maneuverability of me 410 was bad but that it wasn’t so good that it would have inspired so much enthusiasm.

Hello Dave
Maybe not usually but if the rear man in a LW nightfighter saw a Mossie from 100 Group approaching, I’d say that maneuverability would have become very important issue in the minds of the LW crew.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Oct 20, 2009)

This data is from Wikipedia so I make no claims for it to be perfect. 

*Me-410A.*
390 sq ft wing area.
24,766 lbs max take off weight.
63.5 lbs per sq ft wing loading.

*Mosquito Mk XVI*
454 sq ft wing area
25,000 lbs max take off weight.
55 lbs per sq ft wing loading

*Ju-88G1*
587 sq ft wing area
32,385 lbs max take off weight
55 lbs per sq ft wing loading.


----------



## Juha (Oct 20, 2009)

Nice
Thanks Dave!

BTW Mk XVI was a bomber or recon plane, on NFs IIRC NF 30 max t/o was around 21 - 22.000lb

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 20, 2009)

Juha said:


> Nice
> Thanks Dave!
> 
> BTW Mk XVI was a bomber or recon plane, on NFs IIRC NF 30 max t/o was around 21 - 22.000lb
> ...



also me 410 in day fighter configuration weight around 21-22000 pounds, idk with night equipment


----------



## davebender (Oct 20, 2009)

> me 410 in fighter configuration weight around 21-22000 pounds


That provides a wing loading almost identical to the Ju-88G.


----------



## Juha (Oct 20, 2009)

Hello Civettone
Brow was clearly more critical on Me 410 manoeuvrability than I remembered. From Air International Nov 1981. “I soon discovered that the controls were not well harmonised, the elevators being heavy, the ailerons fairly heavy and the rudder moderately so. The Me 410 was therefore a rather poor a/c to manoeuvre, and it manifested a very sharp stall with severe wing drop, particularly if stalled in a tight turn. Furthermore, the stalling speed was high…it fell far short of Mosquito on the score of manoeuvrability.”

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 20, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Civettone
> Brow was clearly more critical on Me 410 manoeuvrability than I remembered. From Air International Nov 1981. “I soon discovered that the controls were not well harmonised, the elevators being heavy, the ailerons fairly heavy and the rudder moderately so. The Me 410 was therefore a rather poor a/c to manoeuvre, and it manifested a very sharp stall with severe wing drop, particularly if stalled in a tight turn. Furthermore, the stalling speed was high…it fell far short of Mosquito on the score of manoeuvrability.”
> 
> Juha



and if this are trouble of tested plane?


----------



## Maximowitz (Oct 20, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> and if this are trouble of tested plane?



Well, it's more than well documented that the '410 did not handle particularly well in a stall situation...."one hand on the control column, the other on the ripcord" was the description one Luftwaffe pilot made of the 210/410 design.


----------



## Juha (Oct 21, 2009)

Hello Vincenzo
in the article there is nothing that indicates that, but of course it is impossible to say for sure, there has always been also ”lemons” among a/c. The plane Brown flew in Dec 45 was a 410A-1, not the 410A-3 tested in UK during early summer 44 and late in USA, and on which there are plenty of photos around. And the opinion I posted is only the opinion of Brown, but of course he is a famous test pilot with vast experience on WWII a/c. Of course it would be better if some of us had access to LW, RAF or USAAF evaluation report on Me 410.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Oct 21, 2009)

> "one hand on the control column, the other on the ripcord" was the description one Luftwaffe pilot made of the 210/410 design.


The problem with this statement is that it lumps the Me-210C and Me-410A with the 200 Me-210A aircraft produced during early 1942. They aren't the same thing.


----------



## Maximowitz (Oct 21, 2009)

Agreed Dave, by the time the fuselage length was inceased and other changes made, the 210 Ca and Me 410 were better handling aircraft and the 210 Ca was popular with its pilots. However it still had poor stability and manoeuvre qualities, although Luftwaffe pilots liked its (relatively) high speed and powerful armament.


----------



## davebender (Oct 21, 2009)

What impresses me most about the Mosquito is that it was powered by the relatively small RR Merlin engines yet still achieved excellent performance.


----------



## vanir (Oct 22, 2009)

To be honest I'm surprised the Hornet derivative took so long to get muted and built, I'd have expected the idea for a single seat fighter variant of the Mozzie to be on the drawing boards the month after service entry. And how about that Hornet eh, fastest postwar piston fighter in major service wasn't it?


----------



## davebender (Oct 22, 2009)

Even better. Germany would have done well to copy the Mosquito design but using aluminum and DB605 engines.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 25, 2009)

Milosh said:


> Can you elaborate on your Ta154 comment Civettone.


What part of it? The Ta 154 proved to be a problematic design, it was operationally tested and was generally disliked. IIRC it was especially tail heavy. It also had structural problems.
One often reads that the bombing of the glue factory was the reason for the halt in development but this does not seem to have been the main reason.
In the last weeks of the war the remaining Ta 154s were used again but without any success.

The Germans pretty much tried to convert everything into a NF so it is suprising that they didn't do this with the most logical aircraft, the Me 410. Not even a prototype was built. This can only be attributed to the faith in the Ta 154. It is surprising to see that this changed once the Ta 154 project was completely cancelled.


Kris


----------



## Civettone (Oct 25, 2009)

davebender said:


> Even better. Germany would have done well to copy the Mosquito design but using aluminum and DB605 engines.


You're probably right. But Germans simply copying a design?  They tried that with the T-34 tank and ended up with the Panther  


Kris


----------



## Civettone (Oct 25, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Civettone
> Brow was clearly more critical on Me 410 manoeuvrability than I remembered. From Air International Nov 1981. “I soon discovered that the controls were not well harmonised, the elevators being heavy, the ailerons fairly heavy and the rudder moderately so. The Me 410 was therefore a rather poor a/c to manoeuvre, and it manifested a very sharp stall with severe wing drop, particularly if stalled in a tight turn. Furthermore, the stalling speed was high…it fell far short of Mosquito on the score of manoeuvrability.”
> 
> Juha


In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that would be true. When I think about it, it's only natural. The Bf 110 and Me 210/410 were not designed to be manoeuvrable. High wing loading for violent and vertical manoeuvring were the core of all German fighters. They were all energy fighters not turn and turn fighters.

So I don't know what this would have meant in an actual fight. The Ju 88 was not succesful as a fighter while the Bf 110 was relatively so... and the Me 210 was designed as more manoeuvrable than the Bf 110. 

I don't know how to put all these elements together...

Kris


----------



## davebender (Oct 25, 2009)

There is some truth to this. The relatively large Do-217 medium bomber had no business being used as a night fighter. If the Ju-288 had entered production during 1944 it also would probably have been diverted to the night fighter force.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 25, 2009)

Both 410 and Do-217 were not 'deserving' the DB-603.
The nightfighter Ju-88 with 603s would've been something, on the other hand.


----------



## davebender (Oct 25, 2009)

The Do-217 was a superb medium bomber. However it was wasted as a night fighter just as the Me-210/Me-410 were wasted as day fighters.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 26, 2009)

The high-performance night fighter was in dire demand for Germans during most of the war. Therefore the Ju-88 with DB-603 would've been a great asset. 
If that meant 'killing' the Do-217 and Me-410, so be it. The one-ups performed by those two types could've been easily emulated with 'Ju-88-603' bomber versions.


----------



## davebender (Oct 26, 2009)

The Do-217 entered production by the end of 1940, filling the heavy bomber niche until the He-177 was ready. I don't think Germany can afford to cancel the Do-217 unless some other bomber fills that role. Which means Germany would probably need to proceed with the Ju-89 / Ju-290 program from 1937 onward.

The Me-110 / Me-210 / Me-410 issue is more complex. In my opinion Germany should have produced the Fw-187 as a long range day fighter ILO the Me-110. In that case there would be no Me-210 and Me-410 programs.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 26, 2009)

Since only 1600 Do-217s were produced, I reckon it that plane was not regarded as something of crucial importance for Luftwaffe. The 3200 engines 15000 guns it consumed would've been in better use in Ju-88/188 airframes.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 26, 2009)

Interesting to know that the Me 410 and Do 217 were built in the same Dornier owned factory. Not all of them but most. 

I agree with Tomo that cuts had to be made. I would however cancel the Ju 88 and Do 217 in favour of the Me 410 and He 177. Those two could do what the Ju 88 and Do 217 could but do a better job at it...

He 111 could be produced until 1944 when the He 177 had its problems ironed out.
And at the same time I would force Junkers to convert all production to the DB 603 even if the Jumo 213 was going to be a bit better.

It's all about economics.
Kris


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 26, 2009)

The 603 was one of 'the' engines of ww2, too bad for Germans that it was not used like US used R-2800, or the Brits using RR Griffon.


----------



## davebender (Oct 26, 2009)

http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp905.pdf


> The Ju 88-program constituted one of the largest German armament projects. The firms
> which took part in the original plan of 1938 employed more than half of the workforce
> engaged in German airframe production. Even in 1943, when the focal point of air
> armament began to shift to fighters, the participants in the Ju 88-program still employed a
> ...


Germany cannot cancel a program this size in the middle of WWII. You would need to cancel it during 1937. Which means the Hs-127 likely enters production instead as the standard German light bomber.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 26, 2009)

I am quite aware of the production procedures. The Germans changed their procurement plans several times a year which meant that there was no long-term organization. The problem is that any major change needs to be prepared several weeks or even months in advance. It starts with the smallest subcontractors and ends with the final assembly.
So yes, it was not easy to drop a program and replace it with another. That's why the Germans were still fighting with many same though improved aircraft in 1945 as in 1939. 

But let's not exaggerate. The main reason why the Germans failed to change production was because the planned successors failed (in this case the Ju 288 ). Another reason is of course the major production loss. Not only for retooling and retraining the workers but also because of the 'learning curve' which means that it takes a long time before production is optimalized. 

And yet, at some point one has to bite the bullet and see what is beneficial in the long run. At the end of 1944 and early 1945 this was done without hesitation. All piston engined fighters and night fighters except for the Ta 152 and Do 335 were to be taken out of production and replaced by jets. The number of types in production was reduced to 11 and later to just a handful. But by then it was too late. 

So in short, cutting the Ju 88 or even Fw 190 program would inevitably result in a temporary shortage of aircraft when they were very needed. Political courage is needed for such a decision. And yet there is no other possibility because they will have to be replaced by other types one time or another. After this shortage production will be increased to levels far above that of the time before. Plus, maintenance and repairs will be drastically improved. This is all the more important for the Luftwaffe which had a 1/2 serviceability rate which was idiotic and incomprehensible. Only drastic measures could ensure the survival of the Luftwaffe. All other countries realized this, only the RLM (Reichsluftfahrtministerium) was stuck in pre-1939 thinking.

Kris


----------



## davebender (Oct 27, 2009)

> only the RLM (Reichsluftfahrtministerium) was stuck in pre-1939 thinking.


Why do you say that? 

Hurricane, P-39 and P-40 fighter aircraft were produced into 1944. The Me-109 was superior all of them by a wide margin.

B-25 and B-26 medium bombers served to the end of WWII. The Ju-88 was superior to both.

There are plenty more examples of obsolescent allied equipment remaining in mass production.


----------



## paradoxguy (Oct 27, 2009)

davebender said:


> Why do you say that?
> 
> Hurricane, P-39 and P-40 fighter aircraft were produced into 1944. The Me-109 was superior all of them by a wide margin.
> 
> ...



Both the B-25 and B-26 were excellent medium bombers that had very good defensive armament and compiled excellent combat records, IIRC. They certainly could defend themselves better than the Ju-88 bomber. In what way(s) was/were the Ju-88 superior to them?


----------



## davebender (Oct 27, 2009)

> In what way(s) was/were the Ju-88 superior to them?


Ju-88S1. 379mph max speed. 326mph cruise speed.
B25J. 275mph max speed. 230mph cruise speed.
B25G. 287mph max speed. 216mph cruise speed.

Which bomber would be most difficult to intercept or to hit with AA fire?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2009)

paradoxguy said:


> Both the B-25 and B-26 were excellent medium bombers that had very good defensive armament and compiled excellent combat records, IIRC. They certainly could defend themselves better than the Ju-88 bomber. In what way(s) was/were the Ju-88 superior to them?



Considering the Ju 88 was used as a heavy fighter and a night figher, I find it hard to believe it could not "defend itself". In the bomber role, I can agree with you though, because it had less defensive armament.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 27, 2009)

As far as the JU 88 "defending" itself I guess it all depends on the Variant doesn't it?

JU 88S has one hand held 13 mm MG with 250 rounds out the top rear. Not much if the fighters do catch it.

If it is carring night fighter guns and radar then it isn't a bomber is it? 

THe 379mph is while using GM-1, Pretty zippy put niether the GM-1 or the Fuel is going to last forever. It is also without external load. 

Just what was the mission radius of the JU 88s with even 2200lbs of bombs at what speed?

A bomber that can't reach the target with bombs on board, no matter how fast, isn't any better than a slow bomber that can.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 27, 2009)

Dave, that Ju 88S comparison is flawed and you know it ! 
The Ju 88S was a special pathfinder version with a single gun and a small payload and bigger engines. 
Ju 88A-4 was 292 mph but as it had to carry heavier bombs on the outside would lose quite a bit more than other medium bombers. 


And I said the RLM was stuck in prewar thinking, I didn't say the Luftwaffe was nor that the aircraft were outdated. The RLM still managed aircraft procurement programs as it did before 1939. If you disagree then just recall the boss of the RLM? Who was that again? Oh yeah ... 

Kris


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 27, 2009)

Both US bombers (and not only them) have had the benefits of strong engines being available early enough. That enabled them to carry a dozen of HMGs and plenty of bombs and rockets. 
In the same time (1940-41, when B-24 -25 were conceived) RLM though that 1500HP would've be enough for designs of the next 3 decades.


----------



## paradoxguy (Oct 27, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Considering the Ju 88 was used as a heavy fighter and a night figher, I find it hard to believe it could not "defend itself". In the bomber role, I can agree with you though, because it had less defensive armament.



That's why I specifically mentioned the Ju 88 bomber version in my comparison to the B-25 and B-26. As you pointed out, the Ju 88 heavy fighter and nightfighter versions should not have difficulty defending themselves, but comparing the American heavy bombers to these versions would have been akin to comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## davebender (Oct 27, 2009)

That's flawed logic. A bomber that gets intercepted by a dedicated bomber-destroyer like the Fw-190A8/R1 is likely to die no matter how many defensive machineguns it has. The best defense is to make interception difficult by cruising at high speed over enemy airspace.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 27, 2009)

A bomber is a bomb truck, it's mission is to carry bombs from it's base and drop them on targets. 

If the targets are beyond the range of the bomber,or the bomber carries so few bombs at that it requires many more bombers to get the same weight of bombs to the target then the small, fast bomber is useless. 

THe two american bombers could not perform like the LATER models of the JU 88 but then the JU 88 couldn't perform many of the mission the American bombers could perform. 

It couldn't carry enough fuel and bombs at the same time.

Edit> Question, was that max speed of the JU 88 using GM-1 at it's normal weight of 24,250lbs or at close to it's max weight of 30,400lbs?>edit


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 27, 2009)

davebender said:


> That's flawed logic. A bomber that gets intercepted by a dedicated bomber-destroyer like the Fw-190A8/R1 is likely to die no matter how many defensive machineguns it has. The best defense is to make interception difficult by cruising at high speed over enemy airspace.



Think you've misunderstood me.
The reason I've mentioned dozen of HMGs (along with other weapons) was to describe the higher firepower, both offensive defensive, US bombers had when compared to their German counterparts. The powerfull engines enabled that.
Ju-88 was rarely able to 'cruise at high speed over enemy airspace'. It was faster then Polish and Norvegian fighters, and that was it. Nor the Do-217, nor Me-210/410. It was Mosquito that could do the high speed bomb run for the most of the war.

Now, if we mount the DB603 at Ju-88s as early as 1942...


----------



## Civettone (Oct 27, 2009)

paradoxguy said:


> That's why I specifically mentioned the Ju 88 bomber version in my comparison to the B-25 and B-26. As you pointed out, the Ju 88 heavy fighter and nightfighter versions should not have difficulty defending themselves, but comparing the American heavy bombers to these versions would have been akin to comparing apples to oranges.


Yes, the Ju 88 was proven to be very vulnerable back in the Summer of 1940, suffering higher losses than both the Do 17 and He 111. Both versions had a more effective armament arrangement. As a bomber the Ju 88 was seriously flawed in terms of defensive armament and interior bomb load. I would like to know why anyone would consider it to be superior to the B-25 or B-26 or even A-20. Because it could dive bomb and was a few mph less slow ?

Like Tomo pointed out, the American bombers had what they needed: strong engines, good defensive armament and decent bomb (and rocket) load.

Kris


----------



## davebender (Oct 27, 2009)

B-18 Bolo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> By 1940, most US Army Air Force bomber squadrons were equipped with B-18s or B-18As


The B-25 and B-26 were not operational until 1941. A comparison during the summer of 1940 means the Ju-88A vs the B-18A.

B-18A. 215mph max speed.
Ju-88A4. 317mph max speed.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 27, 2009)

You are missing the point. The Ju 88 was already vulnerable back in 1940 and suffered higher losses than two other types which were almost 5 years older. Goering himself said that he felt Junkers had betrayed him. Had he known the real performance of the Ju 88 he would never even have ordered the aircraft. I know he is an idiot but it says something about the reason why it was ordered in the first place. Junkers had promised a bomber which could fly around (!) Britain and be faster than any fighter trying to intercept it.

In any case, you were to one who stated that the Ju 88 was superior to both the B-25 as B-26. And that's what I would like you to prove...

Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 27, 2009)

Since this seems to be turning into an 'German "Uber" Planes' are always superior lets look at a few things. 

First JU 88 flies 19 months after the first B-18. 

B-18 was OUT of production in 1940. 

B-18 could carry 4400lbs of bombs 1200 miles. All bombs inside.
 
JU 88A-1 was just a bit lower than 317mph. like closer to 280mph and that is running about 3000lbs below MAX weight. 

THe JU 88A-1 also has a slight Bomb load vrs range problem. like out of a 5525lb useful load once you deduct 800lbs for a four man crew (with parachutes) and just to be sporting we will include Ammo and oil in that you have 4725lbs left. once you stick in the MAX bomb load of 3960lbs of bombs you have 765lbs left for fuel. Or about 128 gallons US. 

Granted the A-4 model had a much higher MAX gross weight to go with it's more powerful engines but then that 317mph still doesn't look so good. Isn't that 317 WITHOUT external bomb racks? Of course with the bomb bay part filled of fuel tank that only leaves room for ten 110lb bombs inside. What does the speed become when not only are the racks fitted but bombs are hung off them?

I will grant you much better than the B-18 but nowhere near the difference that is posted. 

And to even things up just a bit how about comparing the JU 88A-4 to the B-23 which did enter production in small numbers in the fall of 1939. Production stopped because the US was not in a shooting war and could afford to wait for the B-25s and B-26s.

B-23. 282mph MAX speed, bomb load 4000lbs, Range 1400 miles. 

Very first B25s. 322mph Max speed.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 28, 2009)

Ju 88 A-4 can load 3 tons of bombs and 1.2 tons of fuel and so i can't think that A-1 can load only 1.8 tons of bombs and .35 tons of fuel the, are you checked this number?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2009)

Going by "Green" which may be out of date.

I don't want to use the numbers from wiki unless I have no other choice

Differences between the A-4 and the A-1 Are not limited to just the engines. The A-4 had a bigger wing. was supposed to have beefed up landing gear to handle the extra weight and even had fitting for rocket-assisted-take-off units for use when trying to lift the max bomb load of 6614lbs. 

Another question is just when did the JU 88A-4 get the 1400hp Jumo 211Js? Green claims first production samples in late 1940 still had the Jumo 211B-1 engines of 1200hp. 

As to the weights I was using, I used an empty equiped weight of 16,975lbs and a loaded weight of 22,840lbs. Performance figures are given for weights of 19,750lbs and 22,840lbs. anoterh book (also by Green) gives a MAX loaded weight of 27,500lbs. All these numbers are for the A-1. 

Going back to the A-4 it is listed as having a a MAX loaded weight of either 30,865 or 31,000lbs ( I wouldn't get upset about that variation) The questions are when and with what engines and with what performance penility. Empty equiped weight is given as 21,737lbs. 

While the JU 88A-4 might have hit 317 mph without the bomb racks fitted to claim that was it's operational speed on a combat mission is not right. 

The American planes MAX speed might have been achieved at less than max weight also but to discount the affects of using an external bombload like the JU-88 used doesn't seem quite fair.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2009)

The Ju 88 was not the greatest bomber. Not even close. In that sense Civettone is correct, nor can that be really argued. The Ju 88 was much better suited for other roles and duties.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 28, 2009)

in this forum some posted original ladeplan for A-4 empty weight it's around 8.5 tons and max take off around 13.5

here http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/we...oadouts-individual-bomb-sizes-makes-9040.html


----------



## Njaco (Oct 28, 2009)

and those who contend that the Ju 88 was better may be taking in its total service record where it performed a multitude of duties. Strictly as a bomber it was inferior but as NF, ground-attack, shipping attack, etc puts it on a better level although not an equal one in many cases.


----------



## davebender (Oct 28, 2009)

I'm not overly enamored with the Ju-88A. However the late war Ju-88G and Ju-88S are so improved (at least on paper) that it makes me wonder how they achieved such huge improvements. Larger engines cannot be the only reason.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2009)

Vincenzo:

Thank you for the reference.


Njaco:

The JU 88 was more versitile. Trying to turn a B-25 into a night fighter would have a joke.

davebender:

When looking at an aircraft one has to take the total mission into account. Too many websites (and books) simply list the best possiable speed, The greatest range (regardless of payload) and the max bomb load a plane could get off the ground with regardless of how far it could actually carry it. 

Factor in a few real life conditions like a 100 degree day causing a plane to have both less power and less lift compared to a "standard" 59 degree day for take-off and real life capabilities fall even further behind. 

As for the JU 88 S. Try ripping out a good part of the armour, most of the defensive guns, one crew member, getting rid of the gondola that provided for lower rear defense, fitting a more streamline nose cap and leaving off most of the external bomb racks and the dive brakes and for the iceing on the cake, filling the rear bomb bay with a 400lbs of Nitrious oxide installation that held 900lbs of nitrous. Of course this means that you only have the forward bomb bay to put bombs in before they go outside causing large amounts of drag. Some of the longer ranges listed require the forward bomb bay to be filled with a fuel tank so then there are NO INTERNAL bombs. And so far I have not seen speeds listed for carring external bombs.
Maybe the extra speed will keep you safe but it's actual capabilities as a bomber may not have improved all that much, if at all.


----------



## davebender (Oct 28, 2009)

Aircraft Database


> The Ju-88S could carry 2 tons of bombs and still maintain 600 kph.


I have no idea how accurate that web site is.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2009)

davebender said:


> Aircraft Database
> 
> I have no idea how accurate that web site is.



Well, lets see:

Engine Name : BMW 801 G2 

Cylinders: V-18 

Something wrong there. 

Power : 1730 hp @ 3000 rpm 

The RPM is in question. 

Machinegun Armament : 1x 13mm MG131 (Tailgun - 750 rounds) 

I guess a gun firing out the rear of the cockpit canopy could be called a tail gun but the ammo capacity is about triple what some other sources give. 

Of course the picture used to ilustrate it is wrong. Wrong engines, wrong nose,canopy and gondola.

And of course it is asking us to believe that hanging a 2200lb bomb under each wing root is only going to slow the plane down by 10kph. 

It may be true but I think I want a better source unless you believe hanging a pair of 500lb bombs under a Mustang or Thunderbolt is only going to slow them down by 10-15kph.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 28, 2009)

good analysis man !


kris


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 29, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Since this seems to be turning into an 'German "Uber" Planes' are always superior lets look at a few things.
> 
> First JU 88 flies 19 months after the first B-18.
> 
> ...



B-18 and -23 are larger plane i don't think that it's right compare it to Ju 88, B-25 and -26 also larger (not as 18 23) and are youngest, imho the just US built bomber to compare with 88 is the Boston.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2009)

Original poster said;
"B-25 and B-26 medium bombers served to the end of WWII. The Ju-88 was superior to both."

and later;

"The B-25 and B-26 were not operational until 1941. A comparison during the summer of 1940 means the Ju-88A vs the B-18A.

B-18A. 215mph max speed.
Ju-88A4. 317mph max speed. "

The JU 88 may have been faster but speed does not always mean a better bomber. 

The Americans called the "Boston" an attack plane not a bomber in the begining. It wouldn't carry enough bombs far enough to meet American bomber requirements.

If somebody wants to start a thread on best bomber under 31,000lbs or best bomber with a wing under 600sq ft or best bomber with a wingspan under 66ft go for it.


----------



## davebender (Oct 29, 2009)

I agree. However the U.S. Army Air Corps does not appear to have appreciated the A-20. They used B-25s, B-26s and even B-17s for low level attack missions during 1941 to 1942 while giving most of the A-20s to Russia.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 29, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Original poster said;
> "B-25 and B-26 medium bombers served to the end of WWII. The Ju-88 was superior to both."
> 
> and later;
> ...



The boston had around same dimension of 88, that US official designation it's a A don't make it not a bomber, (as for A-26)

p.s. imho all the solid nose US "bombers", both A or B called, aren't bombers but only attack plane, a level bomber need a level bombsight (norton or other) and a bomber


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> The boston had around same dimension of 88, that US official designation it's a A don't make it not a bomber, (as for A-26)



I guess it depends on mission requirements. If the US wanted a "bomber" to carry 4000lbs of bombs 500 miles from base and return then the A-20 Doesn't qualify. IF a bomber is is any plane that carries bombs and a bombadier then it does. 



Vincenzo said:


> p.s. imho all the solid nose US "bombers", both A or B called, aren't bombers but only attack plane, a level bomber need a level bombsight (norton or other) and a bomber



Not really, you only needed one or two planes per group with "glass" noses and bomb aimers. The Americans were big on formation bombing. All planes bomb on signal from "lead" plane. 
Same plane is a low level straffer today and medium altitude bomber with a range of hundreds of miles tommorrow, all without changing a thing on the plane. talk about versitile


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2009)

davebender said:


> I agree. However the U.S. Army Air Corps does not appear to have appreciated the A-20. They used B-25s, B-26s and even B-17s for low level attack missions during 1941 to 1942 while giving most of the A-20s to Russia.



Just how many low level attack missions did the US fly in 1941?


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 29, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I guess it depends on mission requirements. If the US wanted a "bomber" to carry 4000lbs of bombs 500 miles from base and return then the A-20 Doesn't qualify. IF a bomber is is any plane that carries bombs and a bombadier then it does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wan't argued on US designation, they can design as they want. 

Right observation but if "bombardier" planse were shoot down? This is possibiel only in the actual situation with air superiority as the US in late WWII


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> Right observation but if "bombardier" planse were shoot down? This is possibiel only in the actual situation with air superiority as the US in late WWII



True but adding just a second or even third "bomb aimer" plane per formation should handle combat losses. 
that and the solid nose planes tended to show up later in the war anyway. 
I don't believe there were any solid nosed Martin B-26s.


----------



## davebender (Oct 29, 2009)

> how many low level attack missions did the US fly in 1941?


A bunch in the Philippines until F.E.A.F. was wiped out. 

Colin Kelly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Colin Purdie Kelly, Jr. (July 11, 1915 – December 10, 1941) was a World War II B-17 Flying Fortress pilot who flew bombing runs against the Japanese navy in the first days after the Pearl Harbor attack. He is remembered as a war hero for sacrificing his own life to save his crew when his plane became the first American B-17 to be shot down in combat. Colin Kelly has been called the first American hero of the Second World War.



If Cpt. Kelly had been flying an A-20 ILO a B-17 he would have a better chance to hit the target and evade Japanese fighter aircraft. The same goes for bombing missions conducted in defense of the Dutch East Indies during early 1942, defense of Midway during June 1942 etc.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 29, 2009)

All bomber aircraft had a bombardier on board but strangely enough on most missions they all just dropped when the lead plane dropped theirs. That is indeed a strange thing.

I also want to add this to the A-20. Both the Ju 88 and the A-20 were used as tactical bombers. But the A-20 was not used as a strategic bomber like the Ju 88 was. That's true. But this is not because the A-20 wasn't fit to do so. It was because the Americans had other bombers for the job: the B-25, B-24, etc. And that's also why they started to use the A-20 solely as an attack aircraft, the B-25 and B-26 could do the other stuff. 
If the Germans had an aircraft like the A-20 it would probably have been used much like the Ju 88...

Kris


----------



## davebender (Oct 29, 2009)

Let's try a 1943 comparison. The Ju-188E and A-20G are a pretty close match.

*Ju-188E.*
Junkers Ju 188 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2 x BMW801G engines. 1,700 hp each.
310mph max speed.
31,967lbs loaded weight.
21,825lbs empty.
--------------------------
10,142lbs total payload.


*A20G.*
Douglas A-20G Havoc
2 x Wright R-2600 engines. 1,675 hp each.
339mph max speed.
27,200 loaded weight.
17,200 empty.
------------------------
10,000lbs total payload.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2009)

davebender said:


> A bunch in the Philippines until F.E.A.F. was wiped out.



A bunch, really?

wiki"Immediately after the outbreak of the Pacific War in December, Brereton sought permission from theater commander General Douglas MacArthur to conduct air raids against Japanese forces in Formosa, but was refused. As a consequence, FEAF was largely destroyed on the ground by Japanese air attacks from Formosa within three days, and by December 10th, the U.S. Army Air Corps in the Philippines was essentially wiped out. The few remaining aircraft flew until the fall of Bataan, but accomplished little."

how many is a bunch? 3 attacks, 5 attacks, 8 attacks?

Colin Kelly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


davebender said:


> If Cpt. Kelly had been flying an A-20 ILO a B-17 he would have a better chance to hit the target and evade Japanese fighter aircraft. The same goes for bombing missions conducted in defense of the Dutch East Indies during early 1942, defense of Midway during June 1942 etc.



And just when did the A-20s actually get to the South Pacific?

They have to go by ship, not enough range to fly like the B-17s were doing. 

And like some early American fighters some of the Early A-20s do not have self-sealing tanks are not considered combat capable.


----------



## davebender (Oct 29, 2009)

Too late to do any good. That was Gen MacArthur's choice as he established the priority for shipment of army equipment in the Pacific. His historical priority was B-17 heavy bombers but it could have been A-20s as there were plenty available by mid 1941.


*A-20 Aircraft Production.*
A-20


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 29, 2009)

The A-20s would've been a great asset for Allied forces in PTO CBI for the 1st war year. 
I'm basing this upon the experience of the French air force: the loss rates for bombers imported from USA (DB-7, M-167) were pretty low, despite the fat that 109s and 110s were well armed fast. Surely, better 'bomber destroyers' then Oscar and/or Zero. 

OTOH, if the MacArthur's B-17s were put in a good use, the Japanese forces might have been nicely stuck.


----------



## davebender (Oct 29, 2009)

I have read that the Soviet Union made good use of A-20s in the maritime attack role. The U.S. Army Air Corps or U.S. Navy could have done the same thing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2009)

davebender said:


> Too late to do any good. That was Gen MacArthur's choice as he established the priority for shipment of army equipment in the Pacific. His historical priority was B-17 heavy bombers but it could have been A-20s as there were plenty available by mid 1941.
> 
> 
> *A-20 Aircraft Production.*
> A-20


MacArthur had no choice until mid-1941 because until then he wasn't even in the US Army. 
Please define "plenty available by mid 1941".

40? 60? 200?

First US unit equiped with A-20s doesn't get there until August of 1942.

Just maybe those "plenty available" were commited elsewhere. Unless you want to cancel existing contracts or promises of delivery to allies.
Army planners might have wanted a plane with more range for the theater.

Capability of the A20-A; Range 525 miles with 2400 pounds of bombs. 675 miles range with 1200 pounds of bombs
Capability of the A20-B: Range 825 miles with 1000 pounds of bombs. For ferrying purposes, the A-20B could be equipped with an auxiliary 200 US gallon fuel tank in the bomb bay. With this tank fitted, maximum ferry range was 2300 miles
Capability of a B-25B: range 2000 miles with 3000 pounds of bombs. 
Capability of B-25C: Range 1500 miles with 3000 pounds of bombs.

Take your pick of the last two but I think we can see there is a considerable difference in the bombing ability between an A-20 and B-25.


----------



## davebender (Oct 29, 2009)

26 July 1941.
USAFFE (United States Armed Forces in the Far East) created. Gen. MacArthur was appointed CiC. They were given priority for new American manufactured military equipment and virtually unlimited funding. The bulk of U.S. Military shipping was in the Pacific and remained there until the invasion of North Africa during the fall of 1942.

USAFFE can ask for the next 150 A-20s to roll out of the factory and they will be his. They will be assigned to two of the bombardment groups heading to the Philippines ILO B-17s. USAFFE now has two light bombardment groups ILO the historical two heavy bombardment groups. Logistical support for these units is significanly less then for heavy bombardment groups so some shipping is made available for other stuff also. Perhaps the 54 x A-24 (i.e. SBD) dive bombers of the 27th Light Bombardment Group will make it to Manila prior to December 1941 instead of being enroute at the time of the Japanese attack.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 29, 2009)

maybe good with help a moderator to split 88 discussion from 210/410 discussion


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2009)

davebender said:


> USAFFE can ask for the next 150 A-20s to roll out of the factory and they will be his. They will be assigned to two of the bombardment groups heading to the Philippines ILO B-17s. USAFFE now has two light bombardment groups ILO the historical two heavy bombardment groups. Logistical support for these units is significanly less then for heavy bombardment groups so some shipping is made available for other stuff also. Perhaps the 54 x A-24 (i.e. SBD) dive bombers of the 27th Light Bombardment Group will make it to Manila prior to December 1941 instead of being enroute at the time of the Japanese attack.



Except that the A-20s have to go by sea. The B-17 can fly themselves to the Philippines. THe "Historic" two Heavy bombardment groups actually consisted of 35 planes. Somehow I don't think 150 twin engine planes are less of a logistics burden than 35 four engined planes. Espeicial if the 150 twin engine planes have to go by ship. 

While the A-20s make better long range recon planes than P-40s they don't come close to what the B-17s can do. 

Bombing capability of early B-17: Range 2400 miles with 4000-pound bombload. Maximum range 3400 miles.

A-20s would be lucky reach half of Formosa with a 1000lb bomb load.

Edit>see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Far_East_Air_Force< end edit


----------



## davebender (Oct 29, 2009)

B-17 support personnel, spare parts, gasoline, bombs, aviation engineers (to build facilities), perforated metal planking (for runways), towing tractors, bomb carts, etc. go by ship. Which is to say 95% goes by ship. Flying the bombers to the Philippines was just a publicity stunt.

What does Formosa have to do with sinking troop transports carrying Japanese 14th Army to the Philipppines?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2009)

Formosa is where the Japanese land based air is. 

You know, all those planes the Japanese used to attack the Phillipines with. 

Automaticly giving your opponent a safe haven for his air force by deliberately selecting short ranged air craft seems a strange way to prepare for war. 

Strange, for publicity stunt, it was the way they planned to get even more B-17s there. 

It did also save shipping space for all that support personel and equipment. you might need a time machine for that Perforated metal planking ,too.

"Nevertheless, the Army decided in December 1941 to procure the PSP mat primarily because
of its ease of production." 

From: http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-pamphlets/ep870-1-42/c-3-4.pdf

Tough to get the metal planking to the Phililpines by ship in less than a week.

Try doing the math. If the US wanted to put 40 tons of bombs of bombs onto Formosa Air fields it could use 20 B-17s or 80 A-20s. Which group is going to require more fuel, more support personel and more air crew. 

You are the one who claimed the A-24s could have been shipped with the savings in shipping space. Where is the savings is shipping space if you are trying to move 120-150 twin engined planes by ship. 

Of course if your Idea is to just use short ranged planes and fight a defensive battles while the Japanese pick and chose where to strike go for it.


----------

