# Junkers Ju88



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

Just a few words about one of my fav planes of WW2..Luftwaffe doesnt get much mention so i thought i would change that!

One of the War's most versatile aircraft, the Junkers Ju88 was a mainstay of the German Luftwaffe throughout the war. It was one of the very few aircraft that could roam the skies over Britain without being vulnerable. It was tough, fast, and rather maneuverable for a bomber. That led to a later role for the Ju88: Night-Fighter. The Ju-88 was used in nearly every campaign, from Convoy bomber to Flying bomb. 


Exceeded only by the Mosquito in sheer number of forms and purposes, the Ju88 had a long history before the war. It was first flown as a civil prototype. The design process had been rapid. (Led by two Americans, temporarily hired, who were experts in modern stressed-skin construction.) The Ju88 never flew in a civil role, however, being almost immediately turned into a bomber. These A-1 bombers were heavier, and slower, but more capacious. These were just entering service when war began. The generally good performance and formidable bomb load were offset by wholly inadequate defensive armament. The A-4 increased the span, and the bomb load and gun power was augmented. This was the base on which diverse development would occur. 
The Ju88 was structurally excellent, combined large internal capacity with a great load-carrying capacity. It was also never degraded in performance to the point where it became vulnerable, as were it's Dornier and Heinkel stablemates. With the BMW Radial and the Jumo 213 engines, the later Ju88s were almost as fast as contemporary fighters, at all altitudes, and could be violenty aerobatted as well. One of the 88's basic design feature was that the crew was huddled together, obstensibly to improve combat morale. This made it difficult to add proper defensive armament. In the period of 1940-43, over 2,000 Ju88s were built each year. (Nearly all A-5 or A-4 variants) 


After splitting off into two completely new branches, the Ju188 and 388, the bomber's development was shifted to the streamlined S-series of high performance bombers, as it had been accepted that traditional Luftwaffe bombers were doomed if intercepted, no matter how much armament was carried. Due to this conclusion , bomb and fuel loads were greatly reduced in the S-series and all sub-variants. The G series were the night fighters, and the final series, P, was for big-gun anti-armour aircraft, the Nbwe with flame-throwers and recoilless rocket projectors. Another was a large family of Mistel composite-aircraft combinations, in which the Ju88 lower portion was a pilot-less missile steered by the fighter mounted on top. (Unconfirmed reports spoke of Trainers, but these most likely were mis-identifications of Mistels, or another kind of trainer.) Altogether, Bomber, Reconaissance, and related Ju88s totaled 10,774, while the frantic construction of Night-fighter versions in 1944-45 brought the total to at least 14,980. The Night fighters were extremely formidable, bristling with radar and weapons. These were responsible for destroying more Allied night bombers than all other fighters combined.












Technical Data for Ju88:

Origin: Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke AG, dispersed among 14 plants with subcontract or assembly by ATG. Opel. Volkswagen and various French groups.
Type: Military aircraft designed as dive bomber but developed for level bombing, close support, night fighting, torpedo dropping, reconnaisance and as a pilotless missle. Two to six crewmembers.
Engines: (A-4) two 1,340hp Junkers Jumo 211J 12-cylinder inverted-vee liquid-cooled. (G-7) two 1,880hp Junkers Jumo 213E 12-cylinder inverted-vee liquid-cooled; (S-1) two 1,700hp BMW 801G 18-cylinder two-row radials.
Dimensions: Span 65ft 10.5 in (20.13m), (early versions 59ft 10 3/4in); length 47ft, 2 1/4 in (14.4m); (G-7, 54ft 1 1/2 in); height 15ft 11in (4.85m); (C-6) 16ft 7 1/2 in (5m)
Weights: Empty (A-4) 17,637lb (8000kg); (C-6b) 19,090lb (8660kg). (G-7b) 20,062lb (9100kg); (S-1) 18,300lb (8300kg); maximum loaded (A-4) 30,865lb (14,000kg); (C-6b) 27,500lb (12,485kg); (G-7b) 32,350lb (14,690kg); (S-1) 23,000lb (10,490kg)
Performance: Maximum speed (A-4) 269mph (433 km/h); (C-6b) 300mph (480km/h); (G-7b) 402mph (643 km/h); (S-1) 373mph (600km/h); initial climb (A-4) 1,312ft (400m) /min; (S-1) 1,804ft (550m) /min; service ceiling (A-4) 26,900ft (8200m); (C-6b) 32,480ft (9900m); (G-7b) 28,870ft (8800m); (S-1) 36,090ft (11,000m); range (A-4) 1,112 miles (1790km); (C-6b) 1,243 miles (2000km); (G-7b) 1,430miles (2300km); (S-1) 1,243 miles (2000km)
Armament: Various
Users: Bulgaria (briefly), Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Romania.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 23, 2004)

interesting stuff 8) ive always like the 88, and this thread has give me an idea to replace the ageing b-17 vs lancaster one........ so i propose:

JUNKERS JU-88 vs. DE HAVILLAND MOSQUITO


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

oooooooohhhhhhhh thats a good un! I know which side bronze will come down on! The mossie!


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

well CC, i done it...Ju88 vs Mossie is now up and running....quick get your argument in.....Ju88 gotta win!


----------



## Huckebein (Mar 23, 2004)

Wha...!? I gotta defend my darling dH 98!!!


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

Oh shit....jsut my luck to have a couple of fanatics defending the wooden bomber!


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 23, 2004)

Ha! the Mosquito sucks! JU88 Rulez!

FVS Kiwimac


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

thankyou kiwimac!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

kiwimac said:


> Ha! the Mosquito sucks! JU88 Rulez!
> 
> FVS Kiwimac



Oh my god...Kiwimac is delierious! He doesn't know what hes saying! 

Quick someone slap him!


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

Oh my lawd! Watford Gap 'im???I think my friend i' is yew who needs a nang Watford Gap. Only kiddin' China (plate) . Lumme!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2004)

stop showing off.............


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

ok sorry....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

mosquito was the better plane, the 88 is my personal preferance of the 2 though 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 25, 2004)

If the JU88 was that much cop...why did the Germans pack them with explosives, attach them to either a Me109 or a FW190 (to guide them on target) and then fly them unmanned into enemy positions and ships to blow them up? something called the 'Mistel' project.  

A bit of a dubious thing to have on your CV wouldn't you say?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2004)

i definatly prefere the mosquito, just for it's better performance..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 25, 2004)

mistel composites eh?  the lanc like them.... 8)


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 25, 2004)

I would say the Mossie 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 29, 2004)

Hear Hear =D>


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 29, 2004)

oh hear what? hail to thee hear ye hear ye


----------



## Crazy (Mar 29, 2004)

A Bf-109/Ju-88 Mistel composite:








I prefer the Mossie for it's superior performance, but the 88 is my favorite of the two as an aircraft in general. I never latched onto the mossie like some


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 30, 2004)

I can't think of a single thing that is better or preferable about the Ju88 compared to the Mosquito - the Mossie is a very inoffensive aircraft to look at (in fact i think its the most beautiful aircraft to come out of the war) and its history speaks for itself - I can't understand why anyone would prefer that ugly, German Ju88 8)


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 31, 2004)

That was a good read on the Ju88 by jj1982 - As I'm just reading Capt. Eric [Winkle] Brown's book,' Wings of the Luftwaffe' at present, he's test flying all these different types of captured German aircraft , and his desciptions are like 'being there' - I personally like the shape of the Ju88 G series, the aircraft overall were, I feel, the best all-round contender to the Mosquito of all the German aircraft ! It was a bloody good aircraft in all it's roles, and being a divebomber too , surprised me. - I do distinctly recall reading about this 'T' version though , it served in the MTO and was reputedly the fastest of them all . Has anyone else heard of this model ? I remember it was based there around the time Johannes Steinhoff was flying with the 77 staffel and it was the 'PR Aircraft the Allies couldn't catch...' - BUT I do have to vote the MOSQUITO as a better aircraft , all the different roles etc.; not exactly a 'divebomber' like the Ju88's built-in capacity, but it 'skip-bombed' and was more manoevrable - and rocket-firing - it was 'aesthetically' well-designed and what craftsmanship to build over 7000 of them ! - The wood construction was the reason they were so good, as they were easier to repair and lighter, and allowed them to build more Lancasters , eh LANC ??! - Lastly , thanks to Crazy, Hot Stuff and others for the work to make this an excellent website - Cheers !


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 31, 2004)

> I prefer the Mossie for it's superior performance, but the 88 is my favorite of the two as an aircraft in general. I never latched onto the mossie like some



i see where you are coming from, the mossie was a great plane but it doesnt really have any charisma  ive always preferred the 8 too

as for the mistel composite, i have a really cheap pun i could use but i wont


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

No charisma??!!!! have you been drinking C.C?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

nope 8) the mossie is boring


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

The Mosquito was one of the most amazing achivements in aviation history! a fighter-bomber that had amazing speed, amazing handling, an ability to perform almost any task other aircraft had to be individually designed for AND perform them better than anyone else - it had great weapons, anything from rockets, to cannons to a huge 'molins' gun that it attacked ships with! it flew as a recon aircraft, intrusion fighter missions, bombing runs, nightfighter - it did all those things.... and above all the most amazing thing was that it was a state-of-the-art made monoplane faster than anything else in the sky and so invaluable to our airforce that i am convinced that without it we wouldn't have won the war at all and even though every other aircraft we had (spitfire, hurricane etc) was made of metal...the Mosquito was mostly made of Plywood!

hence its nickname the 'wooden wonder' 

Usually i agree with you on things like this but i must say you couldn't be more wrong if you tried matey....I WILL convert you! You WILL love the Mossie! as a Brit its your national responsibility!


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 1, 2004)

I heartily second that Whaler ! - Whilst I feel the Ju88 had many good points, the Mosquito's collective firepower, rockets etc. were equated to a broadside from a Cruiser , all from a wooden aircraft - They are and always will be unique in Aviation History - that's why a chap down here is making brand new fuselages which hopefully some of the 31 survivors worldwide will benefit from - Mosquitos Rule !!!!


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 1, 2004)

I heartily second that Whaler ! - Whilst I feel the Ju88 had many good points, the Mosquito's collective firepower, rockets etc. were equated to a broadside from a Cruiser , all from a wooden aircraft - They are and always will be unique in Aviation History - that's why a chap down here is making brand new fuselages which hopefully some of the 31 survivors worldwide will benefit from - Mosquitos Rule !!!!


----------



## R Pope (Apr 1, 2004)

Mossie was a great plane, but any pilot with experience on it will tell you that you had to keep a close eye on the history of each one, a few hard landings and you avoiuded it like the plague! The wooden structure would fail without warning after such treatment. The Israelis had a problem in the '48 war with delamination, where the engines would go ahead without you! The hot dry climate was not what deHavilland had in mind when he built her.


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 2, 2004)

Yup,

Just one MORE reason the JU88 was the superior aircraft! <smug>

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

nope, you wont convert me, despite your fantastic argueing skills nothing you can do or say will make me like the mossie  i know that it was a great plane but i dont like it! its so good i find it uninteresting and boring


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 2, 2004)

kiwimac said:


> Yup,
> 
> Just one MORE reason the JU88 was the superior aircraft! <smug>
> 
> Kiwimac



I'm supposed to be diplomatic as a Moderator but i must say Kiwi 

what a crock of


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 2, 2004)

Please Kiwi...can you send me a post full of the many reasons why the Ju88 was better than the Mossie...i'm fasinated to see what you have to say...but make sure your arguments are good ones...because i'll enjoy disproving them more... 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

> I'm supposed to be diplomatic as a Moderator but i must say Kiwi
> 
> what a crock of



 the ju88 isnt better  he doesnt need to argue for it, we all know te 88 was worse 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 2, 2004)

Kiwi quite clearly stated he thought the Ju88 was superior


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

hes been drinking


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

i believe you missed an apoastraphie, and you're right, the Mossie was better..............................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

> apoastraphie



what the  oh, you mean apostrophe, i thought you'd taken up latin


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 5, 2004)

Now, now Bronze,

Remember the heart condition 

I'll get around to sending you my reasons one of these days <said with a kind of gentle, airy loftiness>

Kiwimac


----------



## R Pope (Apr 6, 2004)

It could be said that, in any discussion of two weapons on opposite sides, the one on the winning side must be the better! But of course,I am far too open-minded to suggest such a thing.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

kiwimac said:


> Now, now Bronze,
> 
> Remember the heart condition
> 
> ...



My heart condition is very staple thankyou very much!! 

 

and as for your 'reasons' for the Ju87 being 'great' please send them to me! id love to spend time reading a page full of LIES!!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2004)

> the one on the winning side must be the better!



not true, weight of numbers wins.................


----------



## Crazy (Apr 10, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> and as for your 'reasons' for the Ju87 being 'great' please send them to me! id love to spend time reading a page full of LIES!!!!




You do mean the 88, right? Because we all know the Ju-87 wasn't superior to anything


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2004)

apart from the French.................


----------



## Crazy (Apr 10, 2004)

Actually, for the brief time they were fighting on their own, the French aircraft were pretty good 8) A continuation of their WWI legacy. It couldn't last, though...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2004)

i realise they held their own for a while, but it's still fun to poke fun at them..................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 12, 2004)

Crazy said:


> bronzewhaler82 said:
> 
> 
> > and as for your 'reasons' for the Ju87 being 'great' please send them to me! id love to spend time reading a page full of LIES!!!!
> ...



No, Kiwi LOVES the JU87 (for some insane reason i don't comprehend 8) )


----------



## Crazy (Apr 12, 2004)

Actually, we're not doing the 87 justice, but it's still amusing to poke fun at 8)


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 13, 2004)

Blows raspberries to all and sundry!

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 13, 2004)

Crazy said:


> Actually, we're not doing the 87 justice, but it's still amusing to poke fun at 8)



Crazy, it is impossible to give any credit to such a terrible plane...but out of respect for Kiwi I'm going to abandon my Ju87 bashing days....  

It'll be tough but i'm willing to try 8)


----------



## brad (Apr 13, 2004)

ju88 good bomber not efective enough


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 13, 2004)

The Ju88 was an excellent plane and very useful to the Germans for all sorts of things...but it certainly wasn't the best bomber of the war by a long shot...that distinction still belongs to the Mossie


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 13, 2004)

ok, lets get one thing straight first, the lancaster was the best bomber of the war, but, however, after making the 1:72 model of the stuka, I have allot of respect for it now, it's easy to see why it was so feared...................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

I can't think why...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

it looks VERY imposing, and it's huge for a single engined aircraft...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

> ok, lets get one thing straight first, the lancaster was the best bomber of the war, but, however, after making the 1:72 model of the stuka, I have allot of respect for it now, it's easy to see why it was so feared...................



oh no, hes turning like te milk in my fridge 

lanc, brnze, dont do it! the ju-87 was s**t! dont let them convert you!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2004)

it was ok at the beggining of the war and in russia and africa, i think i'm gonna do it, i'm gonna convert, who's with me?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

no!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 16, 2004)

here's you saying in that other topic you like the stuka................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

that was then, this is now, i like the stuka 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 21, 2004)

you change direction like the french when they see an enemy.............


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 24, 2004)

Stukas were big in the gunsights of Allied aircraft, where they belonged. Always reminded me of a Vulture, crappin' and spitting lead on a road crammed with refugees, no glory in that...The Ju88 was a much more refined aircraft by comparison - BUT, I'm here to defend the Mosquito...and when Israel acquired it's 300, of various marks from Britain, France and various other sources in 1948, many were already in poor condition. They acquired more in the '50's, mostly FB6's and used them in a couple of squadrons with a nil loss rate and near 100% serviceability! One should realise that when they built them, they weren't designed to last that long, and considering they've still got 30 odd worldwide with potentially new fuselages to come on stream, using today's epoxy glues and whatnot, they're gonna be around for awhile yet. No one was really inspired back in '45 to keep Ju88's particuarly [let alone stukas] and they are fishing the occasional '88 out of fiords now, but will they ever fly again? - Mossies were very popular after the War because of their Rep: they didn't get that because they were mediochre...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2004)

you gotta admit the mossie was the better plane..............


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 25, 2004)

Absolutely !! -I feel aircraft restoration is a noble and talented art, and in that context I'm pleased to see any aircraft from the past restored - vehicles too...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 25, 2004)

i'm more interested in the planes than the vehicles, unless it's a T-34, they were cool 8)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 25, 2004)

T-34 was a good tank. I'm interested in all aspects of World War 2, aircraft, armour, weapons, technology, politics...everything basically.


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 25, 2004)

The JU88 served in a number of airforces post-ww2 including the French.

The whole concept of a dive-bomber was obsolete by the end of WW2 that the Stuka continued to find roles it culd excel in, even when very outclassed, is an indicator that it was a very good airplane.

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 25, 2004)

altough it will always be remebered as a dive bomber, easily the best (and only truely successful) one of the war............


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 25, 2004)

The japanese Val was also quite successful early on in WW2 but, yes, you are right the Stuka was the best of the bunch.

Kiwimac


----------



## plan_D (Apr 26, 2004)

No it wasn't, the Stuka was merely used so extensively it looks good. It was quickly sent away from the Western Front because it was, well, poor.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2004)

but what in the way of dive bombers can you compare it to?


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 26, 2004)

I thought the Dauntless did a good job, and the Helldiver...


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 26, 2004)

Oh, and P.S; the Mustang was a useful dive-bomber, capable with strengthened wings of 2000lbs of bombs...


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2004)

There were plenty of aircraft that could do a better job than the Stuka, it was just used extensively. The A-36 Apache was much better than the Stuka, and you can call that a dive bomber safely because it had dive breaks...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2004)

my vote still goes to the stuka................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

i dunno much about dive bombers


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

that's 'cos there's not many to know about...................


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2004)

Well what do you want in the way of a dive bomber, a plane built for the role or one that could do it? If it was the latter I could say plenty that were better than the Stuka, if the former, I've still got a list.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

a plane built for the role 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2004)

deafinatly, any plane can go into a shallow dive with a light bomb..........


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2004)

Apache and Dauntless both built for the task of dive bombing, both superior to the Stuka. Just to name two.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 29, 2004)

Yeah, I agree, and stand by what I've said about Stukas- They were creamed in the BoB and only useful when escorted, and anything that deliberately bombed strafed civilians as they did, isn't worthy of respect. The Apache , Dauntless, Helldiver did respectable work in their respective theatres....


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 29, 2004)

that means B-17's arent respectable and neither are lancs and Mossies (see what I did by only capitalizing Mossies and B-17?) because they killed more German civilians than any German plane against any population (civilians at least)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

Germans are you trying to say Mosquitos couldn't do a mission unless escorted because if you are, I think you should read about some Mosquito missions.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 30, 2004)

Naw, I just didn't like the Stuka's tactic during the Blitzkrieg of divebombing roads jammed with refugees...they probably did a great job militarily, but once they started bombing England beyond Military targets, the Germans got back 1000 fold what they got...it was afterall the end of Wars of entire trench warfare, and Britain already had a hint of it from the Gotha bombers in the First War bombing England...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

Lots of planes not built for divebombing were better than the Stuka as well: P-47 Thunderbolt, P-38 Lightning, F4U Corsair, just to name a few.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2004)

they're just gound attack, allot of planes were better in general ground attacks, we're talking about perpose built Dive-Bombers..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

Well, they would still Dive-bomb pretty well. But if we are talking pure dive-bombers, what about the Val? It boasted something like an 85% hit rate in the first year of the war. (And to avoid the reply, yes I know it sucked after that).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2004)

how did you know i was gonna say that, and yes i do know about the val, but I still prefer the Stuka..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

Because the Val was only effective if it had effective escort. Of course the Battle of Britain proved the same was true of the Stuka. The coolest aspect of the Stuka was that it was a psychological weapon as well. Just thinking about those sirens makes me shiver and I (thankfully) was never on the receiving end.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

The A-36 didn't need escort, it could handle itself in a dogfight, so its better.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

Only thing about arguing for the A-36 is that the US abandoned it (plus the A-24 and A-25) when they found out that the P-38, -47, -51 could dive-bomb and do a whole lot of other stuff as well.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 30, 2004)

Essentially though, dive-bombing was more a German tactic [and Jap], the Allies seemed to 'dabble' in it rather than develop specific aircraft to do it. The German divebombers were well-made for it, easy as falling-off a log-type-of-thing...Most of the Allied fighters had a dive-bomb capability, built-in to training...the Ju88 was a well-developed all-round aircraft and as a dive-bomber, quite 'heavy-duty'...I wouldn't have liked being under one...but it's opposite, the Mosquito, did a nice job of bombing , - target-marking and skip-bombing...plus take-care of itself OK...


----------



## plan_D (May 1, 2004)

The A-36 wasn't abandoned, only 500 were ever ordered. It had 4 .50 cal in its wings and two under its nose. It could perform better than most dive bombers but we didn't really use them. 

The Mosquito was a precision bomber without diving, so it was better.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

i don't know anything about the A-36's stats, was it better than the IL-2 (which i doubt).................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

The peformance of the A-36 was much better than the Il-2. It was essentially an Allison-engined Mustang afterall.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

i meant more in it's ability to destroy tanks, an IL-2 could desroy many tanks in one flight, beond any other tank-buster.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

Oh, no doubt. An Il-2 had heavier guns, rockets, and a fiendish little bomb, the PTAB 2.5 that was dropped in clusters over the tops of German tanks. For the purpose of tank-busting, nothing else came close.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

and unlike it's german counterpart, the stuka, it could hold it's own in the air....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

I've never seen that much about an Il-2 in air-to-air. I imagine it's low speed would be a liability but it was definitely tough to shoot down and that rear 12.7 mm MG packed a whallop.

Oh course, the ultimate Stuka pilot, Hans Ulrich Rudel, was credited with 11 kills in a Stuka, go figure!


----------



## Gemhorse (May 3, 2004)

Still think the Hurricane IID with twin Vickers 'S' 40mm's, 60 rpg, 2x .303 and a coupla 250lb's [or 500's] were a well-adapted tank-buster/fighter-bomber; they even had rocket-firing Hurri's during the War [Balkans]...bloody versatile, the old Hurricane, and hardy too - That would be my choice....


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 3, 2004)

Gemhorse said:


> Still think the Hurricane IID with twin Vickers 'S' 40mm's, 60 rpg, 2x .303 and a coupla 250lb's [or 500's] were a well-adapted tank-buster/fighter-bomber; they even had rocket-firing Hurri's during the War [Balkans]...bloody versatile, the old Hurricane, and hardy too - That would be my choice....


 WOAH THERE!!! it was 15 rpg and the 7.62mm's/.303cals were for sighting only (you cant afford to miss after all) and the "D" when equipped with the "S" cannons couldnt carry any other underwing (or fuselage) ordanance. Fw-190 has got to be the best (it could even carry a torpedo or a 4000lb bomb, thats how versatile it was!)


----------



## Gemhorse (May 3, 2004)

Oh, it was much faster too...My source states 20rpg -[ I beg your pardon!!]- diving from 5000ft at 254mph at 20-40ft above the ground, they'd start firing at 1000yds, probably getting another two pair off before breaking-away...Apparently the AP rounds were designed to fragment inside the tanks...got a pic here that's got a Hurri jacked braced to butt-test the Vickers....You're probably quite right about bombs, the bomber version capability was what's quoted - no mention of .303's for sighting, but they'd no doubt be used for defence too...' I was just having a drool....!!!!!! '


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

2 .303s would be a pretty meager defense. And while the Hurricane may have been pretty tough, it can't begin to compare with the Il-2.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 3, 2004)

More manoevrable ???...Hey, I just like the Hurri with 40mm's, the Army liked having airborne artillery...as they needed them at the time , their tank's guns weren't capable of knocking-out the panzers ! - The Il-2 was a very good aircraft in it's role, the Hurricane was an example of immediate-solution to a big problem at that time in the desert....


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2004)

Their tank guns good knock the Panzers in North Africa out, where the D was used. 

Those Fw190 needed their own escort though, they were so slow and unmanuverable. 

The A-36 couldn't match the Il-2 in tankbusting, but it had a much higher survival rate and it did a good enough job. 

And those PTAB 2.5 were only useful if the tanks were bunched or more ideally in a column.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2004)

> The A-36 couldn't match the Il-2 in tankbusting, but it had a much higher survival rate



proberly because the A-36 saw ery little combat?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

The PTABs were limited in their utility, but it would be years before any western nation had anything similar. The potential was there.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

The A-36 saw plenty of combat in North Africa, Italy and India.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

i would stil prefere to be in a IL-2................


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

I'd want to be in the A-36 I'm not very patient and the Il-2 would be too slow for my liking.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

Once the shooting started, I would rather be in an Il-2 . . . I mean that think was a tank with wings!


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

I'd still rather be in the A-36 I could be much more evasive, and maybe have the chance of an air kill in it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

nope im stiking with the others and saying il-2 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

You lot go ahead and get ripped to pieces, the 'concrete plane' can't stay in the air forever.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

neither can an A-36  ripped to pieces? not a phrase one associates with il-2;s...


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

One does when the AA gunners are firing 88mm at you, and you have 190s on your tail with no way of shaking them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

could just ram 'em


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

You could but most likely your aircraft would fall out of the sky as well...although I have heard of a Soviet pilot ramming two He111s and getting home safely, he was in a P-39 though I think.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

the Polikarpov I-16 was effective at ramming planes 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

I imagine it was...ideal for the Soviets...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

all that vodka, their sight cant have been too great


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

I don't think having decent sight mattered..just point them in the direction of the hoards of German bombers and away they ram...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)




----------



## kiwimac (May 4, 2004)

The Majority of Hartmann's kills were IL-2s. 

Kiwimac


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Exactly, because they weren't invunerable.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

but they could dfend themselfs till fighter cover arrived, and when you saw the yak-3s coming, you were in trouble...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

The UBT machine gun on the back of the Il-2 was possibly the most effective rear defense an attack aircraft carried during the war so hang around on the tail of one wasn't the safest thing to do.

I'm not sure what Hartman shot down most, but citing him hardly proves a point. Hartman could have shot down just about anything (he was just that good). The average German pilot would have found the Il-2 a tough kill.

And it's not like the Russians were idiots. Their fighters flew cover for their attack planes just like everyone else did.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

The Yak-3s were good but nothing to soil yourself about, well anymore than any other enemy fighter. The Il-2s had a very high loss rate, to AAA and enemy fighters. 
They were concrete sitting ducks...but a very good tank buster.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

probably the main reason why most of hartmanns kills were il-2's was because there was so bloody many of them


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

That's true. The Russians built something like 35,000 of them. It's reported that Stalin said the Red Army needed Il-2s like it needed bread.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

36,163 if you want to be an anorak


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

I had never seen an exact figure, just 35,000+. I appreciate the info.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Simplicity and numbers was also the Soviets speciality.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

Yeah one of the Soviet generals (I don't remember who) said, "Perfect is the enemy of good enough."


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

i'd imagine they had allot of surplus IL-2's after the war, even if allot had been shot down, there were so many there would always be allot left over................


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I haven't heard of any combat reports after 1945 so they must have been scrapped or sent to museums.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

i doubt they'd be much good in the cold war ..............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

They might have sent a few to the North Korean airforce for use in Korea. But I don't know.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

are there any still any flying?


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I have heard there are, but I don't know where.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

i nkow they're doing one up in england somehwhere, allong with two tiffys............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

They have two Il-2s at Sandtoft down the road from me in Lincolnshire but I don't know their status.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

i can't wait to see them flying, both tiffys and IL-2s are awsome aircraft.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

though the IL-2 is a little more awesome - no, change that hateful word


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

The Il-2 was the better tank-buster but the Tiffy wasn't bad. And the Tiffy was much better as a fighter, though definitely not the best.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

The Tiffy was still devestating to any Axis veichle.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

looked good too


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

It sure did.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 13, 2004)

I don't know how you can even compare the two - The Il-2 was a heavy two-seat ground-attack fighter, the Typhoon a powerful single-seat fighter-bomber, which went a long to off-setting the Fw-190's Air-Supremacy. It was a very stable Attack-platform, and with RP's was like the 'Cruiser-broadside' Mosquitos and contributed greatly to pre-D-Day preparations and pushing the Germans back to Germany...it's high-altitude-fighter relative, the Tempest sorted-out the Air-supremacy factor, along with Mustangs and the later Spitfires...the Typhoon MORE than earned it's place in History...I'd have sooner sat in one of them than an Il-2... - They've even named their lastest jet-fighter-bomber ''Typhoon'' again...[ mumble, mumble..]


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

We weren't comparing the two. We were saying they were both good because they are being restored. 
Yes, this new Eurofigther is supposed to be great though, that's what they said about the Tornado so I'm yet to be swayed.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 14, 2004)

Does anyone Know exactly where and by who the Tiffy's are being restored by ?...I do know one of them is an ex-198 Sqn. aircraft, but I've especially been trying to find out more about them. - And if I appear a little defensive of Typhoons, I apologise... 'C'est la guerre'...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

yes, and i suppose the modern tornado after the WWII ones, all two of them ......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

oh yeah, the windsor sure had them beat in production numbers


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Did you know that when this country got its orders of Tornados it 'moth balled' at least two squadrons worth of Aircraft. Brand new aircraft put into storage to be used as spare parts because they were faulty or just crap. 

The RADAR altimeter used to bounce off the under-carriage. Seriously not many people know this, nor should they know but billions was wasted on those hunks of crap. 

The Pilot would be coming down to land: '200ft...putting under-carriage down....7ft...' looks outside and he's still like 150ft off the deck, the RADAR altimeter was bouncing off the under-carriage. And that's only one of the problems.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

aslong as they've been sorted now.............


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

The old ones won't have, they can't. You can't change the position of the RAD-Alt without completely re-designing the plane. Those aircraft will probably still being used as spare parts. Plus the fact that wasn't the only problem with the aircraft, trust me, it's crap.


----------



## Erich (May 20, 2004)

I'd like to respond to the original posting if I may............  

the Ju 88G-1 and G-6 nachtjäger was fitted with 4 forward firing 2cm weapons and usually a fitting for 1-2 upward (Schräge-waffen), oblique guns. Rear defence was a sole MG 131 13mm gun.

there were no G-7 versions as this was an additon by the RAF after the war to the existing G-6 versions named a-c due to the radar array set-ups, but there was only the G-6 with no particular seperate variance.

v/r

E ~


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

Nice...seem to know your stuff.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 20, 2004)

Not according to my research...there was a G-7a and a G-7b, differing from the G-6c by having Jumo 213E engines, driving VS 19 airscrews and equipped with a MW 50 boost system, the two 33 Imp MW 50 tanks being installed in the wings - this system resulted in 1,608 hp, plus 414 lb of thrust at 29-30,000 ft. The G-7a had FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2, the 4-pole 'Stag's Antlers'./ - The Ju88 G-7b had FuG 228 Lichtenstein SN-3, but the Allies jammed that band , so they switched to Fug 218 'Neptun' VR with the 'Morning Star' aerial array - they stuck it in a wooden nose cone with Naxos Z, in the finish./ - The G-7c had FuG 240 'Berlin' N-1a, which evolved from their studies of a captured British H2S. - Only 10 sets were available before production was stuffed by Air raids, then War's-end...


----------



## Gemhorse (May 20, 2004)

-P.S : The Ju88 'G' series were my favourite....


----------



## Erich (May 20, 2004)

sorry friend but there was NOT as G-7 series a/c.

I am writing a book on the Junkers Ju 88G-6 and crews and it should be published in about two years. All 88's with the late FuG 220d and Rückwarts configs and FuG 218 and FuG 240a1 Berlin were Ju 88G-6's. I have the documentation plus the pilot/crew interviews.

Am not sure just what references you are using..........may I ask ?

have been interviewing and collecting pertinent dat on the German Nachtjagd for over 35 years, and having a cousin that was Gruppenkommandeur of II./NJG 5 where he was KIA.

Now U guyz know a little bit more about my background..........

E~


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

welcome to the site erich 8)


----------



## Erich (May 20, 2004)

vielen Dank sir !  

good to be here and the forums have some interesting information..........

Erich ~


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

We know something about you, but there really is nothing interesting to know about me. So I never bother.


----------



## Erich (May 21, 2004)

well mention yourself ! it is unfortunate that the profile for each member is so limited in space and it isn;t just this site either. I'd be interested to kow more about the members personal interests and maybe this could be placed as a new forum header or thread ? well it was just a thought..............

E ~


----------



## Erich (May 21, 2004)

a Ju 88G-6 foto from Denmark serving with NJG 3. End of war.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 21, 2004)

i like the idea, erich, 8)


----------



## Gemhorse (May 22, 2004)

Ah, I wondered why you seemed very sure of the facts in your post ! - Welcome Erich ! - I am but a student of WWII Aviation History, having read extensively over the years...I've only been into PC's for roughly a year, but it has allowed me greater latitude to learn more, which is why I enjoy this Site so much [when I've time.] - The old adage ' You don't learn when you're busy talking,' certainly applies here ! - The information I've provided comes from 'The Warplanes of the Third Reich,' by William Green, which I'm currently reading, and a most comprehensive read it is too.- But I do concur that not everything written is necessarily correct...I applaud your challenging task of writing such a book;- Indeed , I look forward to reading it, once completed... - I am a Signartist by trade, and am very into Aviation Art, a rather heavily-indulged Craft these days, so I thoroughly understand the need for deeply-researched, historically accurate representation of the facts. My interest lately is mostly centred on my own RNZAF Aircrew contributions of WWII, but have read widely on most aspects of the Conflict. - As with Aviation Art research, you would find that the ranks of the Aircrew from WWII are now thinning considerably, their contribution of the facts, after 60 odd years, are still very valid...- So I shall 'watch learn', as a good student should, and again, it's great to have you on the site....


----------



## Erich (May 22, 2004)

thank you ery much for the warm welcome !

first it takes litertally years of studying and chatting with veterans to build up a data base. I have William's classic but yes it does have errors in it. Take a look at the materials on the Ju 390 and operational history. first there was no flight to New Yirk by FAGr 5 and secondly there was no flight to manchuria either by the same unit.

ok enough of that OT. I really want to emphasize that you English friends get out there and interview as many RAF pilots, crews as humanly possible as the 60 th anniversary of D-day is coming up shortly. You will find that many groups are planning to attend across the pond and it is a prime time for you chaps to get out your notebooks, cameras and interview them "one last time". they will perfectly understand and you will have a treasure in your hands that will last your lifetime. Look through your search engines on the Halifax, lancaster, Mosquito, etc...........and check for fighter/bomber groups and squadrons. many have web-master that are related in some way to crewmen, and then ask questions of them.................it is not as hard as it sounds.

Erich


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

That's going to be a lot of travelling if I'm going down there.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

is that how you meet so many veterans??


----------



## Erich (May 22, 2004)

Lanc as I said I have been doing the researching for years...........and many phone calls and airshows and of course many, many letters to vets all over the world.

Erich


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 23, 2004)

so talk us through it again please, how do you get in touch with them?


----------



## Erich (May 23, 2004)

young man go back through my postings and you can figure it out. 

v/r

E ~


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 23, 2004)

i tried but i need it explianed a bit more................


----------



## Gemhorse (May 23, 2004)

Thankyou Erich - Yes , you're quite right about this marvellous oppurtunity coming-up to contact these veterans...I'm quite envious of my English American fellows on this site, that have all this at their doorstep. I've only been able to make these types of contacts over this last year via email to Warbird Squadron Associations, and with toll calls. You can sit on line here and shoot the breeze, but real facts emerge with contact with Veterans. Apart from tracking down info on an ancestor killed flying Typhoons, and my Aviation Art interest, it's provided me with alot more knowledge by making contact - Even joining Assn.'s is very valuable...These Vets are going to travel to their battlegrounds shortly, I even read about Paul Tibbets [Enola Gay's pilot] now 89, is going back to Tinian June 16 for the Anniversary...Go for it , guys, chance of a lifetime...!


----------



## horseUSA (May 23, 2004)

> Paul Tibbets [Enola Gay's pilot]


He was at the Stuart Airshow last year ( www.stuartairshow.com ), which i volunteered at and I was lucky enough to meet him. A very amazing gentleman.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2004)

wow, cool  i didnt know he was still alive


----------



## Erich (May 24, 2004)

Agaian for my English freidns young and old alike, I really must stress strongly that you check the web for RAF squadrons...........

http://www.rafcommands.com

as an example. Both fighter and bomber squadrons/groups listed. Find out by just type the unit name in yoursearch engine and see what comes up. If you get a favourable link pass it on here maybe in a seperate thread as it might generate interest for all of us. If a e-mail addy is listed for the web-master, write them either he or she and who knows with some knowledgeable questions you may just hit the "jack-pot" and get in touch with some veterans. Again I repeat check your local airshows this spring/summer/fall and attend. hang around as we would say in the states, and get close to the WW2 age guys as they explain their stories/missions to the younger generation. Again don't let things like this pas you up. I repeat within the enxt 10 years these brave souls of WW 2 age will be gone forever....................

surf's up !


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

I doubt within the next 10 years, there's still 26 WW1 vets alive in Britain, and that started 90 years ago. Yes, we all forget that war, 1914 - 1918. 
Anyway, I just might go do it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

what does your siggy mean Erich??


----------



## Gemhorse (May 29, 2004)

You got to meet Paul Tibbets...Wow ! - Not many chaps around who've dropped an A-Bomb, eh ? - In reading Leonard Cheshire's story, I was impressed in his reaction to watching the Nagasaki blast, having been Bomber Command's Top pilot - He became a very humble man, helping Invalid Aircrew and such, after the War....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

i'd have hated to have lived so long with the knowledge of what i'd done if i were him.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 29, 2004)

yeah but if we hadnt done it then the results would probably be even worse.


----------



## Erich (May 29, 2004)

Lanc:

My siggy is thus :

in memory of my fallen cousin on 26 November 1944................

"Only those, which one forgets, are really dead."

the other one from my Opa .............

"God helps all the time"

~Erich ~


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

that first one's really sweet, do you know who said it??


----------



## Erich (May 29, 2004)

my famile; is is an old tradiotnal saying that in this day and age is good for all veterans of both sides of the conflict that gave their lives for their country not regimes. both my Luftwaffe cousins were not sympathetic nazi scum, and besdies I had three other cousings serving in the Wehrmacht and the same saying goes for them as well..........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

my grandad was in the hitler youth, that's why i get annoyed when people start slating the germans.............


----------



## Erich (May 29, 2004)

Ju 88G-6 fitted with late war FuG 220d enclosed in a wooden nose cone. a familiar photo after capture. this reported to be a NJG 4 machine


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 4, 2004)

In my reading Erich, I've somewhere read that the fastest version of the Ju 88 was the 'T' model, used I believe, in the MTO. The 'S' model, according to the book I mentioned to you as my current reference, was also pretty brisk....How do these details sound to you ? - Being a believer that the Ju 88 was very much the Luftwaffe's backbone bomber, in fact , their best multi-role aircraft, I'm keen to establish exactly what their fastest variant was, considering one can't believe all books written on the War...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 14, 2004)

surely the mossie was the better alronder, yes the 88 was more versatile, but it wasn't as good as the mossie in terms of performance............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 14, 2004)

Are you trying to say 'all-rounder?' And if the Ju-88 was more versatile than the Mossie wouldn't that make the Ju-88 the better 'All-around' plane?


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 14, 2004)

Considering the designs for the Ju 88 were started around 1936, it had plenty of time to be tried in all it's various roles...but to end up as a flying-bomb in the Mistel configuration would hardly give it a compliment of being the 'Best Allrounder'...Sure, it was multi-role, and as that, I have great respect [as it's crews did] for it as an Aircraft...The Mosquito must surely take the compliment though, to have done so much in it's much shorter combat-span, and to have continued on into Post-war service, multi-nationally.....


----------



## Erich (Jun 14, 2004)

I think it is fair to say that the Ju 88 was a tried and true a/c, as mentioned it served in a multitiude of capactities, some not so well known or turely deserving of this hard working craft. Same could almost be said of the He 11 in it's many variants. since the German techs had such a hard time improving on a suitable 4 engine for the hopes of long range duties the lighter twin engines had to take the role but on a much shorter scale. although perofming well the Ju 88 was a slow craft that could easily be picked up by Allied single engine fighters including the twin engine Mossie.

One thing of course we know and although it was made up of light wood in collaboration with metal inerds, the Mossie was just plain fast and e4ven the German single engines at night had a very hard time catching the Mossie strike forces over Berlin even when they knew the routes of the Mossie bombers. the only a/c that was on even keel to speed that might overtake the Mosquito was the Me 262 jet.

As to the fastest Ju 88 variant I am not really sure. Would think one of the recon types as number 1 though the Ju 88G-6 with over 375mph cannot be laughed at either..............


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 15, 2004)

The Ju 88 itself was to be a template for the Ju 188, 288 and the 388, and that really interesting variant, the Ju 488, possibly a fast German ' B-29 ' equivilant...- They were cooking-up some quick aircraft, the Ju 188 R,S T variants were being juggled for serious production as Nightfighter, Recon/Intruder models, speeds of 420-435 mph being reached at around 37,000ft. - But as you say, they used the Ju 88 as medium-bomber, but these successive variants all held keys to the development of better and bigger bombers, but they vacillated too much and it was too late....


----------



## Erich (Jun 15, 2004)

The Ju 3388J was suppose to be the replacement for the Ju 88G-1 but the engines with the 4 bladed props seem to have problems along with the wings. Pointed as they were and it was suppose to be a high latitiude version of the capable series. Odd that the 3cm Mk 103 ground attack weapon was considered for the under-fuselage armament. In any case the a/c was dropped............


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 15, 2004)

one question ragarding the Ju-88, why was the 75mm belly mounted gun on the P-1 jettisonable?? was it to save weight if the plane had to make a quick get away??


----------



## Erich (Jun 15, 2004)

good question and you are probably correct in your thoughts, although not sure if it was ever used on ops. experimented with .......yes and the vibration and inaccuracy was terrible. The Ju 88 was not a good ground attack platform. the Bf 110G was better but still not well suited.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

It is interesting but making things jettisonable for a 'quick get-away' often backfired. I imagine that the feature was rarely if ever used and yet simply equipping a plane to jettison a gun or whatever merely added weight and complexity to the design.


----------



## Erich (Jun 15, 2004)

can you imagine with this big butt of a weapon how heavy it made the a/c. Incredibly slow would have made it a tempting target for Soviet AAA and that was considered as it was already proven the 3m Mk 103 with tungsten ammo could blow the crap out of about any Soviet tank plus more rounds per minute than a slow revamped 7.5cm gun

Erich ~


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 16, 2004)

similarily, why was the undercarage of the Ju-87C (the proposed offensive plane for the Graf Zepplin) jetisonable??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

That was for water-landings. If the Stuka had to ditch, the landing gear would hit first causing the aircraft to flip over on its back and that's not a good thing for a flight crew.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 16, 2004)

what did Graf Zepplin actually stand for??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

Graf Zeppelin was named for Ferinand Zeppelin who was a pioneer of airships (hence they were called Zeppelins).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 16, 2004)

so they name a ship after a airship, that must have been inspirering............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

Well more specifically after the man who developped the airships.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 18, 2004)

just a little joke there.................


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 29, 2004)

Yeah, it was the Ju-88 P series that tried 75mm, 37mm and 50mm cannon in a ventral pack... - It's as Lanc Erich say, they were very heavy and unweildy, explosive bolts were fitted in case of fighter attack or flak taking-out an engine...only good for 244 mph, but they were used in limited no.'s, with a degree of success by Panzerjager-Staffel 92, firing 2 rounds per pass;- first from a 1000 ft in a glide-dive, then at 250 ft, quite accurately, but they had a slow rate of fire and the inability to evade, rendered them just another 'passing phase' in the tank battles...


----------



## Dan (Jul 1, 2004)

speaking of the mistrals i wonder how the heck they got those bf 109 or whatever was carrying the mistrals into the air


----------



## Erich (Jul 1, 2004)

the piggy back bomb operated with the pilot above in the smaller Bf 109 of Fw 190, so all three engines were running to create the needed lift.

E ~


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 1, 2004)

i always thoguht the pilot on top would just start his engine in mid air a short while before "dropping the bomb".......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 1, 2004)

No, you needed the power of all three engines to get off the ground. Plus, if you try and start the engine on the ground and it won't, you can get out and fix it. Good luck with that stunt in mid-air.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2004)

it would look impressive however.......................


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 4, 2004)

In light of the V-Weapons, IMO they were a waste of aircraft...- Not unlike the B-17's they tried using as Flying-bombs, although those ones were 'war-weary', with 20,000 lbs of Torpex packed-in and remotely-guided to approximate target-areas, Operation Aphrodite didn't really succeed either...their two-man crews had to bale-out over the Channel...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 4, 2004)

you can't say the V weapons were a waste of aircraft, firstly becuase they weren't really aircraft, secondly becuase look at the technology involved, especily the V2, it would take to long to but down all the technology involved but they were an amazing weapon..................


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 4, 2004)

you can't say the V weapons were a waste of aircraft, firstly becuase they weren't really aircraft, secondly becuase look at the technology involved, especily the V2, it would take to long to but down all the technology involved but they were an amazing weapon..................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 4, 2004)

Erich said:


> 3m Mk 103 with tungsten ammo
> Erich ~



WOW

3,000mm....


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 4, 2004)

What I mean't Lanc, was that in the light of the V-weapon programme, the Mistel programme was a waste of aircraft, and fuel....


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 5, 2004)

Pretty hunky ammo, 30mm High Explosive rounds...


----------



## Erich (Jul 5, 2004)

notice that this is a posed pic meaning the spit was on a ahrdstand postioned to bew hit. This is from one round of 3cm Minen Geschoss

you can easily see why that only 3-4 rounds were needed to take out any Allied bomber with the 3cm Mk 108 weapon


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 5, 2004)

but it depends on where you hit, there are some places that will need one round (pilots head) and some places where it will hit and make no differance......................


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 5, 2004)

Yeah, I thought it was quite impressive. Some pics I've seen of Allied bombers hit like this, were really hard-pushed to have got back to base....


----------



## Erich (Jul 5, 2004)

check the pics I have put up on some other thread.........sorry cannot say which one. All rear attacks with 2cm and 3cm weapons........terrible !


----------



## Erich (Jul 5, 2004)

although the Ju 88's were not fitted with 3cm's, these certainly were in the upper nose many times.......Bf 110G-2's agasint the bombers.


----------



## Erich (Jul 5, 2004)

in the above photo case there are the standard four 2cm weapons fitted. The upper nose guns have been sealed off but at times as I suggested they were used. for the Bf 110G-4 with radar the upper nose guns of 30mm were standard.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 7, 2004)

Consistent with damage, this B-17 caught a 30mm round from a Me-262...


----------



## Erich (Jul 8, 2004)

a little to the left and the wing would have blown off with the fuel cells


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 8, 2004)

why's that picture the colour it is??


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 9, 2004)

I'm quite new to this 'scanning', so I seem to have posted it larger than I intended...it is a black white though...- As Erich pointed-out however, it was hit just missing the fuel tanks which is why it got back and created quite abit of interest amongst the other Squadron guys...


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jan 4, 2006)

I wonder if there are any pictures on the damage caused by a MG151/20 AP/I round?

I bet that would be devastating.

The problems with the Bk 37mm and Mk103 is that Tungsten was in very short supply.

For the Bk 37mm though, it could use the APCR already built for the obsoleto 'doorknocker' 37mm Pak35/36 gun, so no loss there.

Using a bigger gun was necessary using APCBC or HEAT.

The 75mm doesn't sound so bad now? but perhaps the Me262's BK 50mm firing Pak38 50mm-type ammo would have been better? (old APCR stock would likely be available here too)


----------



## Erich (Jan 4, 2006)

the 3.7cm was not using Tungsten ap rounds against a/c nor where the Me 410 bk 5cm either


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jan 5, 2006)

I was meaning that the BK 50mm could maybe use old Pak38 rounds?

The 3.7cm cannons on the Ju87G actually used Tungsten rounds, I think that's *all* they used.


----------



## Erich (Jan 16, 2006)

curious an old thread but where the heck are some of these forum members of 2004 that started out a thread like this: jj and bronzewhaler who is suppose to be a mod ? where are these guys at anyway ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 17, 2006)

bronzewhaler was a hughly active member and good moderator be for ehe mysteriously disappeared...jj1982 was his crazy and much less liked friend...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

What happened.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 23, 2006)

jj was ok but the was on for like a 24 hour stint and made like 500 posts in a day once  Dunno what happend to bronze though, would like to see him make a comeback, he was a good guy.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 23, 2006)

500 posts in one day!
And I thought CC and Lanc spammed


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 23, 2006)

mosquitoman said:


> 500 posts in one day!
> And I thought CC and Lanc spammed


Yeah, this is just taking it one step further than CC and Lanc...


----------



## evangilder (Jan 24, 2006)

That's kind of hard to imagine...


----------

