# ju-88vs b-25vs b-26



## fly boy (Feb 8, 2008)

how would these three aircraft be ranked?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2008)

I am not sure how I would rank them.

Of the 3 I like the Ju 88 the best because of its versatility.


----------



## Nikademus (Feb 8, 2008)

This is a tough one. Each had strengths in different areas. Ju-88, versatility...B-26, high preformance and B25...sturdy, good preformance but docile and forgiving, perfect for lots of incoming newbies to fly.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Feb 8, 2008)

B-26 Marauder, because it was my favorite Snap-Tite model to build when I was a kid!


----------



## davparlr (Feb 9, 2008)

Comparing medium bombers in WWII is very difficult. First, the medium bomber must be defined. Then, since weapons load and fuel load (range) can be traded off, it is difficult to compare oranges to oranges when reviewing performance on published data. Another difficulty was that they were all pretty outstanding aircraft. In comparison, I threw in the A-20 and Mosquito. They’re probably classified as light bombers but the comparison is interesting. I tried to take a snap shot at D-day, just to try to even up the capabilities. I also tried to use the common aircraft at the time. Load-Max is max weight minus empty weigh. I use this value as a reflection of flexibility of design and the ability evaluate trade off of weapons vs. fuel of the competing aircraft. Load N is normal bomb load, Range N is range with nomal bomb load. Data was based on B-25H, B-26G, Ju-88A-4, A-20J, and Mosquito B-IV. The chart will probably come out weird. Airspeed is MPH, wt is in Klbs, loads in Klbs, and range is in 1000 miles.


B-25 B-26 Ju-88 A-20 Mos.

AS 285 282 292 317 380

Wt-e 19.5 24 19 17 14.9

Load-Max 15.5 14.2 11.8 10 7.5

Load-N 3 4 2.2 2 2

Rng-N 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.1


Note: For the Ju-88, only 1000lbs of bombs could be carried internally. This would affect speed performance prior to weapons release.


Just looking at the data and addressing the purely bomber role, it appears that the B-25 is the best choice. With normal bomb load, it is probably the fastest since the Ju-88 must carry some bombs externally, at least until weapons are released, and then it is still close. It has a best load carrying ability by a large amount, 1.3k lbs vs. the B-26 and 3.7k lbs more than the Ju-88. In range it is probably similar to the B-26 since the B-26 normal bomb load is 1k more and if you swapped that for fuel, range would certainly increase accordingly. The B-25’s range is similar to that of the Ju-88 but is carrying 800 lbs more bombs. In addition both the B-25 and the B-26 are carrying significantly more defensive fire power than the Ju-88. In contested airspace those extra guns would certainly be helpful.

For the pure bomber roll, the B-25 is my choice. For versatility the Ju-88 would be the leader with the B-25 a close second. All three aircraft are superb and performed great service for their respective sides.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 9, 2008)

the internal bomb load of ju 88 is 1400 kg, if used a bomb bay for fuel tank is 500 kg, regular internal fuel load is 1220 kg (1680 liters) can use 2 more tank of 700 kg (900 liters)


----------



## glennasher (Feb 10, 2008)

B-25 gets my vote, it was even versatile enough, in one instance, anyway, to take off from the USS Hornet.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 10, 2008)

Vincenzo said:


> the internal bomb load of ju 88 is 1400 kg, if used a bomb bay for fuel tank is 500 kg, regular internal fuel load is 1220 kg (1680 liters) can use 2 more tank of 700 kg (900 liters)



The information I have is that the A-1 and A-2 had 1400 kg internal weapon carriage, but the A-4, the one I referenced, replace one weapons bay with a fuel tank and had internal carriage of 500 kg.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 11, 2008)

see the ladeplane pics on this forum


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 11, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am not sure how I would rank them.
> 
> Of the 3 I like the Ju 88 the best because of its versatility.



I would agree.



Arsenal VG-33 said:


> B-26 Marauder, because it was my favorite Snap-Tite model to build when I was a kid!



Boy, that sets a pretty high standard for the rest of us to follow


----------



## Parmigiano (Feb 11, 2008)

Ju 88. Mainly for being an excellent jack of all trades in every front and role with different configurations, engines etc.


----------



## renrich (Feb 11, 2008)

To me, comparing the JU 88 with B25 and B26 is like apples and oranges. THe 25 and 26 were true medium bombers. The 88 was a multi purpose AC but in the bombing role more of a light bomber perhaps to be compared to the Mosquito or A20. The Mitchell and Marauder more like Dornier 17 and HE111. If one goes just by bomb load to define since the bombs loads are all around 4000 pounds then one has to say the B17 is a medium bomber since on some missions it's bomb load was 4000 pounds. Also the Corsair would need to be a medium bomber since it could carry a bomb load of 4000 pounds.


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 12, 2008)

I need more specifics........out of all of them i am going with adler.....Ju-88


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 12, 2008)

The *A-26*

.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 12, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> The *A-26*
> 
> .



The A-26 wasn't in the running and while in production, it did not get to Europe intil Fall of 44, missing D-day. However with a top speed of 355 mph and a range of 1400 miles with 4000 lbs of bombs, it easily outperformed the contestants. Interesting enough, the A-26 did not make a big name for itself until after the war. It was one of the few planes that flew in three wars, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Maybe other wars in the service of other countries.



renrich said:


> To me, comparing the JU 88 with B25 and B26 is like apples and oranges. THe 25 and 26 were true medium bombers. The 88 was a multi purpose AC but in the bombing role more of a light bomber perhaps to be compared to the Mosquito or A20. The Mitchell and Marauder more like Dornier 17 and HE111. If one goes just by bomb load to define since the bombs loads are all around 4000 pounds then one has to say the B17 is a medium bomber since on some missions it's bomb load was 4000 pounds. Also the Corsair would need to be a medium bomber since it could carry a bomb load of 4000 pounds.



I agree with your thought. I think bomber ratings should be on load carrying capacity since armament can be traded off with fuel(range). I don't know why, but I don't think fighters with big loads like the F4U-4 or the even more impressive in the load lifting category, the P-38, should not be classified with bombers.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 13, 2008)

davparlr said:


> The A-26 wasn't in the running and while in production, it did not get to Europe intil Fall of 44, missing D-day. However with a top speed of 355 mph and a range of 1400 miles with 4000 lbs of bombs, it easily outperformed the contestants. Interesting enough, the A-26 did not make a big name for itself until after the war. It was one of the few planes that flew in three wars, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Maybe other wars in the service of other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with your thought. I think bomber ratings should be on load carrying capacity since armament can be traded off with fuel(range). I don't know why, but I don't think fighters with big loads like the F4U-4 or the even more impressive in the load lifting category, the P-38, should not be classified with bombers.



The P-38 was used several times in high altitude, level bombing, attacks - notably in the 'middle part' of the campaign against Ploesti in 1944. These attacks bombed off of a lead bomb aiming ship.

Later, one of the Droop Snoot version had a norden mobsight in it, although I am not aware of any significant success.

One of the things I didn't see in Dave's analysis was the cruise speed and range with max load at that range?

The next question is what Mission profile is the basis for comparison? Medium altitude precision bombing, low level attack, long range night strikes, dive bombing? all of the above?

If the latter I lean to the Ju 88, and I might favor the A26/B26 for medium altitude/medium range precision, B-25 for anti shipping, etc. They are all good and versatile aircraft


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 13, 2008)

davparlr said:


> . It was one of the few planes that flew in three wars, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Maybe other wars in the service of other countries.



And perhaps most notably, The Bay of Pigs..

.


----------



## fly boy (Feb 14, 2008)

well the b-25h had a 75mm gun in the nose and that kills alot in one shot


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 14, 2008)

That was anti-shipping not anti-personel


----------



## renrich (Feb 14, 2008)

Dav, I agree with you that a Corsair can't be considered as a bomber. I still don't believe a JU88 can be considered in the same category with a B25 or B26 but I guess it is really a question of semantics. The Ju88 could carry 4000 pounds of bombs but most had to be carried externally. As a bomber, it was a failure during BOB. Not as effective as the HE111 but maybe that was because the Germans thought it could operate un escorted. The B25 and B26 could and did operate unescorted. They had much heavier defensive armamment that the JU88 and I suspect they were faster with a full load of bombs aboard. However, I still say the JU88 should be compared with the likes of the A20, perhaps the Beaufort or even the Mosquito. An interesting note about the JU88. Was reading about the 4 engined bombers used against the U-boats, B24s, B17s, Halifaxes and of course Sunderland. They were giving the U-boats what for in the Bay of Biscay and the LW sent out JU88s to attack them and the Brits sent out Beaufighters to attack the JU88s. The Beaus soon disposed of the JUs and their pilots said the JUs were too slow and too lightly armed.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 14, 2008)

drgondog said:


> One of the things I didn't see in Dave's analysis was the cruise speed and range with max load at that range?
> 
> 
> > This is part of the problem of comparing small and medium bombers. It is very difficult, at least for me, to obtain data on these variables that actually compare. Not all of the aircraft in my sources have cruising speed, nor are they consistent in the value of range they state, often never stating what the conditions are at all.
> ...


----------



## fly boy (Feb 21, 2008)

oh yea they used those in the bismarck sea from what i know


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 26, 2012)

I also struggle to identify the best medium bomber. The Americans were blessed with a plethora of medium bombers that were up to date at the beginning of the (American) war and with enough stretch to be competent through the end. The B-25, GB-26 and A-20 were all excellent aircraft. In fact, they were so good that it gave the brass the luxury of botching the introduction of the A-26 without much negative consequence. These bombers were so good that Martin's immediate predecessor bomber, the Baltimore, was not purchased by the Americans. The Lockheed Hudson, Ventura and Harpoon all served well, but (presumably because of lessor defensive protection), the Lockheeds were mostly used for maritime patrol. Had it come into service earlier, the A-26 would have been the standout. Under all the circumstances, I'd say the Mosquito was the best medium bomber of the war. The B-26 was the best for heavily defended targets. The B-25 was best for advanced bases and less than perfect conditions.


----------



## davebender (Nov 26, 2012)

The purpose of bombing is to put HE on target. 

Ju-88 bombing accuracy was far superior to level bombers such as B-25 and B-26. That makes the choice easy, at least until improved bomb sights and/or guided weapons allow accurate level bombing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 26, 2012)

davebender said:


> Ju-88 bombing accuracy was *far superior *to level bombers such as B-25 and B-26.


Proof? Define "far superior."


----------



## davebender (Nov 26, 2012)

HyperWar: The Battle of Britain--A German Perspective
In 1938, "even well-qualified bomber crews could achieve only a two percent bombing accuracy in high-level, horizontal attacks (up to 13,500 feet), and twelve to twenty-five percent accuracy in low level attacks against targets of between 165 to 330 feet in radius

Ju87B-1 could deliver a bomb with an accuracy of less than thirty yards. 

Ju-88 could deliver 50 percent of its bomb load within a 50-meter circle.


----------



## rinkol (Nov 26, 2012)

Renrich, my understanding was that the Ju 88s did fairly well against the Beaufighters in the Biscay fighting, but suffered against the Mosquitos.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 26, 2012)

BTW, we haven't heard from renrich some time?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 26, 2012)

davebender said:


> HyperWar: The Battle of Britain--A German Perspective
> In 1938, "even well-qualified bomber crews could achieve only a two percent bombing accuracy in high-level, horizontal attacks (up to 13,500 feet), and twelve to twenty-five percent accuracy in low level attacks against targets of between 165 to 330 feet in radius
> 
> Ju87B-1 could deliver a bomb with an accuracy of less than thirty yards.
> ...



Gee, with that kind of accuracy, Germany should have won the war! But then again you can put a 500 pound bomb in a pickle barrel with a Norden bomb sight from 20,000 feet! 

There is no way anyone could say one bomber's accuracy was better than another UNLESS you show documented proof of sorties, bombs dropped, targets hit (confirmed by both sides) and base this on a similar sortie/ bomb load comparison as well as the _TYPE_ of bombing being compared. Not taking anything away from the Ju.88, B-25s and B-26s, by virtue of superior numbers, saturated their targets. How accurate was the Ju.88 in "Skip Bombing"? Oh wait, did the Ju.88 ever do "skip bombing"?


----------



## Tante Ju (Nov 27, 2012)

renrich said:


> I still don't believe a JU88 can be considered in the same category with a B25 or B26 but I guess it is really a question of semantics. The Ju88 could carry 4000 pounds of bombs but most had to be carried externally.



Actually Ju 88 can carry up to 8000 lbs externally as overload (two SC 1800 bombs).



> The B25 and B26 could and did operate unescorted. They had much heavier defensive armamment that the JU88 and I suspect they were faster with a full load of bombs aboard.



IMHO the aircraft that really should be compared to B25/26 is the Ju 88E (aka Ju 188 ). it had cannons in its defensive armament, so I am bit sceptical about the "much heavier defensive armament".


----------



## davparlr (Nov 27, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> IMHO the aircraft that really should be compared to B25/26 is the Ju 88E (aka Ju 188 ). it had cannons in its defensive armament, so I am bit sceptical about the "much heavier defensive armament".


These were later war models more contemporary to the A-26. They also appears to not be much of an improvement over the Ju-88 and defensive armament seems to have been problematic.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 27, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Gee, with that kind of accuracy, Germany should have won the war! But then again you can put a 500 pound bomb in a pickle barrel with a Norden bomb sight from 20,000 feet!
> 
> There is no way anyone could say one bomber's accuracy was better than another UNLESS you show documented proof of sorties, bombs dropped, targets hit (confirmed by both sides) and base this on a similar sortie/ bomb load comparison as well as the _TYPE_ of bombing being compared. Not taking anything away from the Ju.88, B-25s and B-26s, by virtue of superior numbers, saturated their targets. How accurate was the Ju.88 in "Skip Bombing"? Oh wait, did the Ju.88 ever do "skip bombing"?



Joe, if I may chip in:

Bomber versions of Ju-88 were dive bombers, so they _should_ in theory bomb more accurately than a bomber making a bombing run from, say, 15000 ft. On the other hand, use of 'parafrag' and 'parademo' bombs while flying above tree top was also accurate, like the 5th Airforce B-25s demonstrated in SW Pac. 
The skip bombing was a matter of crew training, not a matter of this or that plane; obviously, the bigger and/or slower plane, easier the target for ship-based AAA to harm the incoming plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 27, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Joe, if I may chip in:
> 
> Bomber versions of Ju-88 were dive bombers, so they _should_ in theory bomb more accurately than a bomber making a bombing run from, say, 15000 ft. On the other hand, use of 'parafrag' and 'parademo' bombs while flying above tree top was also accurate, like the 5th Airforce B-25s demonstrated in SW Pac.
> The skip bombing was a matter of crew training, not a matter of this or that plane; obviously, the bigger and/or slower plane, easier the target for ship-based AAA to harm the incoming plane.



Exactly!


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 27, 2012)

davparlr said:


> These were later war models more contemporary to the A-26. They also appears to not be much of an improvement over the Ju-88 and defensive armament seems to have been problematic.



the 188E production started in february '43 (2 digit in may) with first mission in august '43. the A-26 delivery started in september '43 ( but the production was very low only in april '44 the month production* get 2 digit (exactly 15), first mission in june '44. So are not so contemporary. It's also true that both B-25 and 26 were in production, in their original form, in early '41.
The bomber production in Germany was stopped near the same time of A-26 get mass production so hard find a true contemporary. 
At time of Ju 188E US built B-26C and started F just few time before the end of production of 188E and the B-25D and from end of 43 the J.
Around contemporary of the B-25 and B-26 is the 88A-4


* wrong is the month deliveries


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Nov 27, 2012)

On paper the Ju-88 might have compared well to the B-25 and B-26, but in the last couple of years of the war, the airspace over northwestern Europe during daylight was more of a deathtrap for the Ju-88 than for the B-25 and B-26. From 1943 on, the Allies had air superiority over Germany, meaning what future the Ju-88 had left was being modified into a night fighter, while the B-25 and B-26 could be utilized as bombers because the Luftwaffe's fighters were steadily being attrited. Plus, one good hit could take out a Ju-88's whole crew because they were all in the forward fuselage, while the B-25's and B-26's crews were more dispersed and the American bombers had better defensive armament.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 27, 2012)

How often were JU-88s actually used as dive bombers? 

I an not talking vertical dives but any attack steep enough to call for the use of the dive brakes? 

If the majority of attacks were either from the level or from shallow dives then the dive bombing accuracy is something of a misdirection. 

A number of aircraft had built in/designed in abilities that were seldom if ever used. Many early B-25s and B-26s had the _ability_ to carry a torpedo even though their crews were never trained to do so. Does this make them _better_ than the Ju-88?


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 28, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> How often were JU-88s actually used as dive bombers?
> 
> I an not talking vertical dives but any attack steep enough to call for the use of the dive brakes?
> 
> ...



The He 177 was a "dive bomber," so did that make it better than it's Allied contemporaries?


----------



## DonL (Nov 29, 2012)

I think this is an unlucky comparison.

THe Ju 88 had it's strenghts through it's versatility and was developed later in the war more to a nightfighter, heavy fighter bomber and naval bomber/attack aircraft.

The only real *major* use of the Ju 88 as true arial medium level nomber was at BoB.

After that many other dutys were also very important next to the duty as medium level bomber.
The Ju 88 was successful as nightfighter, naval attack a/c, support (dive) bomber for the troops and also as heavy fighter in the east.
Medium level bomber wasn't the major duty since 1943.

A better comparison would be the Do 217 since 1941 with the developed steps Jumo 211, BMW 801 and DB 603.
The Do 217 was also nightfighter but the major dutys were medium level bomber and naval attack aircraft and I think in this roles the Do 217 was successful and would be a better match to the B-26 and B-25.
The Ju 88 had more "fighter" genes then all three other mentioned a/c's (especially with the BMW 801 and the Jumo 213), compare all three other a/c's had much more bomber genes.


----------



## dobbie (Dec 5, 2012)

I think the JU 88 is a fine aircraft and very versatile, but I think it comes up a bit short on the Medium bomber category. To me, it just wasnt quite "enough plane" for that sort of role. The bomb load was a bit light for a truly medium bomber unless you wanted to carry a lot of the load on the wings. Out of the aircraft in the poll, the B-26 had the lowest loss rate in combat so Im thinking it was likely the most effective traditional medium bomber despite a lot of teething problems initially.


----------



## Tante Ju (Dec 5, 2012)

Ju 88 dive bombing montage from German newsreel.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02jMZN16OrA_


----------



## drgondog (Dec 5, 2012)

I tend to agree with DonL that the Do 217 is a closer comparison in class to the B-25/26. It would have been interesting to see how it would have fared had it been RAF/USAAF instead of LW. The defensive armament would have probably been upgraded but not sure what else and it would have been at least as effective as the US ships.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 5, 2012)

Apples and oranges; medium bomber; B-26, most versatile (of those three); Ju 88, low level strike; B-25. If I was to choose a 'Best Medium Bomber of the War' however, it'd be the Mosquito.

It's a tough call, I echo the sentiments of others here, all three were excellent aircraft in their own right and had sterling combat records, although the claim that the Ju 88 was a failure in the BoB is not strictly true; the Ju 88 performed the roles asked of it very well - it proved a good bomber and anti-shipping aircraft, it's biggest failure was in common with all other German bombers at that time in its inadequate defensive armament. During the battle, the Ju 88 proved to be the hardest German bomber to shoot down; once it's load had been dropped, it frequently demonstrated why the Germans called it the _schnellbomber_.


----------



## Juha (Dec 7, 2012)

IIRC Ju88 units suffered heavier losses than He 111 and Do 17 units during the BoB but it might well be because they flew the most difficult sorties in the later part of the BoB.

Juha


----------

