Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Jank said: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
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
Soren said:There's no doubt that in terms of KE the .50cal was superior, but the MG131's incendiary projectiles were superior and pretty much made up for the lack of KE with a larger surface damage caused on impact.
delcyros said: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).
Soren said: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.
syscom3 said:The B25's were also carrier capable.
Dont tell me the -88 could get airborne with a usefull payload within 500 feet.
syscom3 said:But the fact remains it flew from a carrier. With a bomb load.
Come now, youre not suggesting the -88 could also fly off a carrier?
mosquitoman said:I've seen pics of a Hercules on a carrier, so why not a Ju-88?
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:That does not make the B-25 a carrier opperable aircraft.
Besides yes I say you could take a Ju-88 off from a Carrier. Can you prove or do you have any evidence that it could not?
Did not think so, Im throwing that argument of yours out the window where it belongs!
Jabberwocky said:MG 131 ammo:
13mm APT
710 m/v
38.5g mass
0g HE content
9703.93 Kinetic Energy j
0 Chemical Energy
9703.93 Total energy j
13mm API
710 m/v
38g mass
2.2g HE content
9577.90 Kinetic Energy
9482 Chemical Energy
19059.90 Total energy j
13mm HEI-t with 1.4g PETN +.3g Thermite
750 m/v
34g mass
1.4g HE content
.3g incendiary content
9562.50 Kinetic Energy
8415.68 Chemical energy
17978.18 Total energy j
13mm Incendiary
770 m/v
32g
2.2 g HE content
9486.40 Kinetic Energy
13224.64 Chemical energy
22711.04 Total energy
M2 .50 Browning Ammo:
.50 Tracer (M1)
872 m/v
42g
15968.06 Total KE
0 Total HE
15968.06 Total energy
.50 Ball
893 M/v
42g
16746.43 Total KE
0 Total HE
16746.43 Total Energy
.50 AP (M2)
880 M/v
43.3g
16765.76 Total KE
0 Total HE
16765.76 Total KE
.50 Incendiary (M1)
899 M/v
41g
2.2g Incendiary content
16568.12 Total KE
9482 Chemical Energy
26050.12 Total energy
Seems to me that the .50API is the best round either gun fired, HE or otherwise. It had a relatively good amount of filler, a very high M/v and excellent AP characteristics.
The 13mm may of had a higher proportion of HE, but its rounds were lighter and slower, poorer exterior ballistics to the .50 rounds.
does a late-ish B-25 Vs. an early 88 seem odd to anyone else? .......[/QUOTE said:Note that I said a "late" 88A, like in an A-4 (seems like later As were special designs). Probably a B-25C/D was more appropiate, but the arguments are the same.
how'd you figure that one out? the B-25 was still in it's prototype/experimental stages as the NA-40 in 1939...........[QUOTE said:The late 88A (like A-4), that I was comparing the B-25 to, was also not available in '39. What I apparently poorly explained was that if you were to fly either of these aircraft with loaded bombs over an environment like Britian in 39, you would want to be in a B-25.
aren't you putting a little too much focus on armament said:Even if the Ju-88 is more agile than than the B-25, in a turning maneuver, it would have to pull a lead which would place the attacker in the line of fire of the tail and top turrets. And since the B-25 may (some of my source say) be slightly faster, and certainly not a lot slower, the Ju-88 would not have a lot of attack options. Wasn't the fighter version of the Ju-88 a night fighter? Also, apparently the exuberant Russians successfully used the B-25 as a fighter bomber.
davparlr I suggest you start reading abit about the Junkers 88 said:There is no doubt that the Ju-88 is agile and deadly. All I am saying is that agility depends on things like roll and pitch rates, control responses, climbing ability (which my sources indicate that the B-25 had a better time to climb than an equivalent Ju-88), etc. Without comparison data on these data points, it is impossible to say one aircraft is significantly more agile than the other.
Roles of the B-25 1. Recon said:As I mentioned above, the Russians used it as a fighter bomber. Also, after the war it became a successful trainer for many years.
I know the point has been made earlier but why are we comparing the 1939 Ju88A4 against a 1942 onwards B25........[/QUOTE said:The Ju-88 A4 did not make the front until 1941. The B-25C/D is probably more comparable would have the same statistics. The B-25B which is deffinitely comparable, time wise, was faster than the A4 (300mph to 293).
The B-25C-1-NA could carry 5200lbs with wing racks.
The data does indicate that the B-25 has a better load/range trade-off than the Ju-88. The B-25C max weight minus empty weight was 13,700 lbs, the Ju-88A4 was 7,722 lb. Assuming similar efficiencies (maybe a big assumption), this is a significant difference and would allow more flexibility with the B-25.
Now having said this said:I don't think it is a runaway by any means. I think this is right on. As far as why I selected the B-25 over the Ju-88 was because I felt the B-25 an underappreciated workhorse. If I had to fly in WW2 in any of these kinds of aircraft, it would be the Mosquito. I like the speed.
As for the Dolittle discussion. The requirements Dolittle had for his aircraft was to take off in 500ft, fly 2000 miles with a 2000 lb bomb load. I think this would be a big stretch for a Ju-88 A4, but Dolittle would pull it off!
The B-25 (along with other planes) decimated Jappanese shipping and ground installations in the South Pacific. We would probably be astounded by the tonnage Japan lost to the Mitchell. Both name and named have honored the advent of air power.
Both aircraft are superb aircraft which warrents a great discussion. Both served their country well.
If it can take off of a carrier, then its a carrier capable aircraft
I would not really go as far as saying the B-25 was more advanced.
The Ju-88 A4 did not make the front until 1941
if you were to fly either of these aircraft with loaded bombs over an environment like Britian in 39, you would want to be in a B-25
I think this would be a big stretch for a Ju-88 A4
those liquid cooled engines were going to be a problem if it would have had to fight in the SW Pacific
I know, but look at the basis of the layout - a large taildragger aircraft was basically an obsolete concept by 1940, it makes training and operaions harder. Now as far as the airframe, construction and robustness, it is on par or even superior to the B-25.Soren said:FLYBOYJ, I think we both know how decieving 'looks' can be