B-25 vs. Ju-88

[davparlr]

Hard to compare the two appropiately with my data. Maybe a B-25G vs. a late Ju88A in '43. The 88 is a bit faster (about 10mph) and a slightly better wing loading (at empty weight) and has some manuevering advantage. Don't know role rates. The B-25 has much better load carrying capability (empty vs. max) and a significantly better range. No contest in defensive armament, the B-25 was a porcupine compared to the 88. As a pure medium range bomber, with the bomb load, armament, and range, the B-25 takes the cake. If you had to fly one of these planes with max load of bombs over England in '39, I think you would be wise to select the B-25. Neither would manuever well and the B-25 armament would hold sway. As far as a dogfight between the two, I don't know. However, I doubt a Ju88 would want to be in a turning dofight with the B-25 and staring down the barrel of four Ma Deuces. Shorter turning radius of Ju88 just makes it worse. Ju88 could probably use other techniques though.

Both were great aircraft and represent the peak of WWII medium range bombers.

I guess my vote would be for the B-25 because of load, range, and firepower. Of course, since each has so many versions, this opinion could vary on mission.

 

[syscom3]

The -88 had liquid cooled engines. The -25 had air cooled engines. Operations at low levels guarentee's you will be shot at and hit. Better to have no radiators to get damaged.

My vote is the B25.

 

[Soren]

For anti-tank purposes the Ju-88 is superior, and as a night-fighter the Ju-88 is superior, and for anti-shipping roles I'd say its superior as-well - being capable of carrying a torpedo.

The only area(s) where I can see the B25 is superior, is in defensive armament and bomb-load, other than that there's nothing.

Oh and davparlr, about your argument that you wouldn't want to be on the B25's tail, well first of all that wasn't a problem as the Ju-88's armament allowed to engage at ranges well out of reach for the B25's defensive armament. And secondly since the Ju-88 was a far more agile machine, it could come in from nearly any angle it would like. So in a 1 on 1 the Ju-88 is clearly superior.

 

[Soren]

The -88 had liquid cooled engines. The -25 had air cooled engines. Operations at low levels guarentee's you will be shot at and hit. Better to have no radiators to get damaged.

My vote is the B25.

syscom3, later Ju-88's had air-cooled radial engines as-well, the BMW-801 engine to be exact, and these were fast as-well with a top speed of ~630km/h.

 

[davparlr]

Oh and davparlr, about your argument that you wouldn't want to be on the B25's tail, well first of all that wasn't a problem as the Ju-88's armament allowed to engage at ranges well out of reach for the B25's defensive armament. And secondly since the Ju-88 was a far more agile machine, it could come in from nearly any angle it would like. So in a 1 on 1 the Ju-88 is clearly superior.

As I stated, different versions of the planes could change the balance. As a bomber version, the Ju88 armament was pathetic. One can always find a combination where one plane outperforms the other. As the comment is made about the Ju-88 being far more agile, I don't know if the data supports that. The Ju-88 was indeed used in fighter roles that the B-25 was not, but I don't know if we have any data on the manueverablility of the B-25. I only have wing loading at empty or max weight. The B-25 was a rugged old bird and I suspect you could yank and bank it pretty good. For aircraft of similar speed and wingloading, the comment that the Ju-88 could attack at any angle it wanted to seems hard to imagine. It makes an image of a mockingbird chasing a crow. That's only possible because the crow flies so slowly. At similar speeds the mockingbird would be looking into those Ma Deuces.

The radial engine Ju-88s did appear to have superior performance. But by that time, the B-25 had stopped evolving for lack of need.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but what else does it have to shoot at other angles besides "frontwards"?

for anti-shipping what other angles does it need? i'd hardly count the B-25's dorsal turret as the ideal anti-shipping weapon, and who manned it? the radio operator?

Maybe a B-25G vs. a late Ju88A in '43

does a late-ish B-25 Vs. an early 88 seem odd to anyone else?

If you had to fly one of these planes with max load of bombs over England in '39, I think you would be wise to select the B-25

how'd you figure that one out? the B-25 was still in it's prototype/experimental stages as the NA-40 in 1939...........

I doubt a Ju88 would want to be in a turning dofight with the B-25 and staring down the barrel of four Ma Deuces

aren't you putting a little too much focus on armament, let's not forget the Ju-88 was actually used as a fighter as was pretty good at it, no matter how many guns some varients of the B-25 had i'm still giving it to the Ju-88, so what if the B-25 got some bombers? that's no basis for it being a good fighter.......

 

[syscom3]

The -88 was not a day fighter at all. Nightime, yes, but you dont need maneuverable aircraft for nocturnal missions.

B25's, had four .50's that could be brought to bear rearward. If the more maneuverable
-88 got onto itstail, it would get a fistfull of lead shot at it.

For the last models of the -88 built in late 1944 and in 1945, it would be better compared to the A26's.

 

[Soren]

davparlr I suggest you start reading abit about the Junkers 88, cause then you'll realise just how agile that bird actually was ! And how deadly as-well !

 

[chris mcmillin]

The B-25 is a real nice flying airplane with super handling and plenty of capability in acro yet very stable. It flies slowly very well, and has a reasonably fast cruise and high speed.
I don't think that any bomber of it's size would be able to easily better it in handling, dogfighting, load carrying or practical firepower.
There isn't any way to quantify these claims of the Junkers' Uber-Capabilities over the Bomber, so I can kind of chuckle at the notion.
No doubt I would love to fly a Junkers to see how it stacks up against the superlative North American. I cannot help but think they are very similar, and don't imagine it was as capable as the A-26, which is a huge step beyond the B-25.

Chris...

PS, there is about "0" practical difference in performance from the B-25B to the TB-25N as far as speed and weights. In actual operation the differences were technical and effected the airplane in where the turret was and how the systems were operated. The engines, props and airframe are the same.

 

[wmaxt]

The B-25 served in many roles with anti shipping very high on the list most of the stats are lost in the Pacific but it destroyed whole small fleets. The same armament would do the same to any tank had it been used in Europe in that role.

The B-25 was considered very maneuverable for a bomber, how they would stack up is anyones guess and would depend on armament and loading to a large extent. Another consideration is crew seating, the B-25, in standard congiguration, had a waist gunner who would not live through violent maneuvers.

The 75mm cannon was reliable, so was the mount. The gun overall was slow hard to operate consistently and the mounts etc did have to be tightened approx every 18 missions. My uncle had first hand experiance on this.

Roles of the B-25

1. Recon, Photo - limited use here. Visual Recon w/hand cameras
2. Bomber
3. Long range anti shipping - from the Phillipines to the sea of Japan with "Bat" guided rockets. The Bat's were wing mounted and bombay tanks were used.
4. Antishipping
Never used as a dedicated fighter but one pilot got five japanese aircraft (including several fighters) and B-25 pilots got a fair number of kills
5. Transport
6. Cannon armed attack
7 Ground Attack

The B-25 was very versatile the main difference was that the AAF wasn't as desperate as the Luftwaffe and had aircraft dedicated and superior for that job at hand and available for use.

wmaxt

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agree'd, but what else does it have to shoot at other angles besides "frontwards"?

It had 2 other machine guns in the canopy housing the cockpit 1 facing the rear and one facing the front, it had 2 machine guns in the nose, 1 facing the left, and 1 facing the right, and it had 1 machine gun in the belly, and had provisions for 2 more machine guns, 1 on the bottom and 1 on top that could also traverse.

 

[Jank]

And all 7.9mm.

Round for round, each had less than 1/4 of the energy as the .50 BMG.

 

[Soren]

No some of them 13mm's, and with its very efficient incendiary projectiles it was a pretty good equal to the .50 cal. In any case the forward facing armament on some Ju-88's was truly massive with up to 6x20mm cannons in the nose or two 37mm Flak38 cannons in a belly rack.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well here is how I look at it:

In pure bomber role: B-25
Anti Shipping: Ju-88
Night Fighter: Ju-88

Both were great aircraft and I have to agree that it depends on the mission. I give it overall to the Ju-88 though because of the versatility. There are not many aircraft built during WW2 that were as versatile as the Ju-88.

Now for those that said the Ju-88s bomb load was not comparable to that of the B-25, you are very wrong:

B-25A: 3000lb
B-25B: 3000lb
B-25C: 3200lb
B-25D: 3200lb
B-25G: 3000lb
B-25H: 5400lb
B-25J: 2000lb

Ju-88A-4: 5511lb

Now for those that said the B-25 could not carry Torpedos you are also wrong. The B-25H and the B-25J could carry a 2125lb Torpedo.

Now having said this, both aircraft were outstanding aircraft but the B-25 does not run away with it as some people here seem to think (probably because of only one reason which I will not go into). They are about equal with some areas the Ju-88 being superior and the B-25 superior in others.

Ju-88 has the edge though, even if only by a c*** hair.

 

[Glider]

I know the point has been made earlier but why are we comparing the 1939 Ju88A4 against a 1942 onwards B25.

Wouldn't the Ju188 be a better bet or even a later Ju88?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You are correct, but that would put the Ju-88 or Ju-188 at even a slight more edge over the B-25 and that would not be good for there argument.

 

[delcyros]

When it comes on anti shipping (in which both planes recorded excellent)
other factors may play a role. Cockpit layout should be adressed first.
Survivability and target size isn´t unimportant as well.
If it comes to the ultimate evolution of both, we should include A-26 and Ju-288/388 (the Ju-288 beeing the best medium bomber but did not reached mass production).

 

[Glider]

Thats what I getting at.

 

[Jank]

I didn't realize that some of the machine guns on the 88 were 13mm. Yes, somewhat close to the .50 BMG. I believe the MG 131 had a higher cyclic rate of fire.

MG 131 (13mm)
projectile weight - 36.2 grams
velocity - 730 ms

M2 (.50)
Projectile weight - 43.3
velocity - 880 ms

 

[Soren]

Just a little addition - with a 5,511 lbs bomb load the Ju-88 would have next to nothing in terms of defensive and offensive armament.