B-25 vs. Ju-88

[syscom3]

no, because it has to be able to get back onto the aircraft carrier........

It was origionally intended for them to fly back to the carrier and land. That idea was nixed by the navy who didnt want their carriers exposed for such a long time. The B25's were perfectly ca[able of landing on the carriers, although their landing weight might have been at the maximum designed strength of the flight decks.

wait a minute, there's an SR-71 on an aircraft carrier, doesn't that make all SR-71s fully carrier capable syscom? quick, someone tell the USAAF and Navy!

Thats to stupid a comment to reply too. Get real.

come on sys let's not get too carried away, they were stripped of almost everything, they had broom handles for guns! they couldn't land back on the carrier and the aircraft all had to be crashed, the bombs dropped were a token measure not a means of destruction, i hardly think that's the career of a carrier capable aircraft...........

It took off with a usuable bombload and flew quite some distance. The fact, and youre afraid to admit it is the B25 did take off from a carrier and the -88 never did, nor could have. And please note a 500 pound bomb dropped as a token does precisely as much damage as a 500 pound bomb dropped in a large raid.

just like it was a problem for the spitfire, just like it was for the hurricane, just like it was for the Tony, just like it was for the P-38, -39, -40, -51 and the mossie, oh, no, wait, it wasn't a problem for them..........

Did you notice that all six of those aircraft spent most of their lives up at middle and high altitudes and rarely engaged in low level attacks? The three main medium and light bombers of the Pacific war that engaged in the low level stuff all had air cooled engines and all usually had damage on them after hitting well defended targets.

and either way, the -88 wasn't designed for use in the pacific, i for one have every confidence it would have done just fine if she had though...........

but it didnt.

 

[Gnomey]

Thats to stupid a comment to reply too. Get real.

and that is coming from someone who thinks the P-51 is better than the Harrier...

Good account Joe.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

The B25's were perfectly ca[able of landing on the carriers, although their landing weight might have been at the maximum designed strength of the flight decks.

i can counter this with something you said

but it didnt.

Did you notice that all six of those aircraft spent most of their lives up at middle and high altitudes and rarely engaged in low level attacks? The three main medium and light bombers of the Pacific war that engaged in the low level stuff all had air cooled engines and all usually had damage on them after hitting well defended targets.

height was of no concern in the lanc/B-24 argument.........

 

[Soren]

Yeah, great account FLYBOYJ ! And I agree as-well, I was just merely pointing out that photo's aren't nearly evidence enough. And truth be told, I have never heard of Ju-88 crew having problems controlling the a/c, and it was and remained an extremely accurate bomber throughout the war.

The B-25's cockpit was obviously more user-friendly however..

 

[syscom3]

height was of no concern in the lanc/B-24 argument.........

You dont suppose theres a bit of difference between flying at 100 feet and at 10000 feet?

 

[davparlr]

A couple of my references say the A4 wasn't delivered until 1941, one says lots were delivered in 1940, so I guess I can't argue your facts.

Your right about the big stretch for the B-25, probably a little less than the Ju-88, but still it took heros to try to launch that plane off the carrier, especially knowing they weren't likely to make their destination.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yeah, great account FLYBOYJ ! And I agree as-well, I was just merely pointing out that photo's aren't nearly evidence enough. And truth be told, I have never heard of Ju-88 crew having problems controlling the a/c, and it was and remained an extremely accurate bomber throughout the war.

The B-25's cockpit was obviously more user-friendly however..

Agree!

 

[Jabberwocky]

Come on Jabberwocky ! What does this mean in a dogfight anyway ?? Nothing..

With a MV of 770 m/s I can guarantee you that who'ever your pointing your weapon at won't have the slightest chance to react at any range out to atleast 1000m. It takes the average human being 1.5 sec's to observe and then start a reaction on anything, by that time the round has already travelled 1km. And with the MG131's 13mm projectile's larger destructive force on impact, I'd at the very least call it the equal of the .50cal.

I never said anything about reacting to the shot. What it means is this: A .50 calibre round will fly to the target faster and straighter, meaning the pilot has an easier shot as he doesn't need to allow as much deflection and has a greater chance of hitting a manouvering target.

Say you fired at a target at 300m.

The flight time for a MG 131 round would be, on average, about 0.49 seconds and the round velocity would have dropped to around 500 m/sec.

The flight time for a M2 round would be, on average, about 0.38 seconds and the round velocity would of dropped to around 740 m/s.

As a plus, the .50 cal retains more kinetic energy (a significantly heavier round with higher sectional density travelling faster), meaning that it will be more likely to punch through armour protecting pilots, fuel tanks, oxygen bottles and the like.

Now, say you fire at a crossing target flying at 300 mph. In that .11 seconds of difference b/w the rounds arriving, a target moving at 300 mph will have covered around 135 meters.

If you were in combat, would you rather be firing the round that arrives first or second?

And, as the API Browning had just as much filler as a MG131 HE/Incendiary round, there isn't that much difference in the potential Chemical Energy of either round.

 

[hole in the ground]

I'm not sure if this has already been stated but....
from a purely personal point of view i would have to go with the 25. For the same reason that in an infantry attack you don't make every one stand together, in an 88 everyone sat up front, in a glasshouse. As soon as rounds start hitting the 'pit that plane is going down.
Max damage with minimum effort on the aggressors part.

 

[Soren]

Oh for Christs sake Jabberwocky I know all this, only difference is I also know that a difference of 0.1 secs means absolutely nothing in a dogfight, esp. not if you're used to shooting the darn gun!

Also when you're behind someone, he won't change direction with 300mph, and you'll be following him(Further reducing his change in direction and place compared to you), which means you need very little deflection with a MV of 770 m/s - which btw hits 400y at 0.49 sec.

And about your claim that "in .11sec at 300mph you will already have covered 135m", well thats just totally insane ! At 300mph it takes 1 whole sec to clear 134m !

 

[Soren]

Oh, and Jabberwocky check up on that difference in chemical energy between the two rounds again will you... Yes, its in favor of the 13mm incediary round.

 

[syscom3]

I'm not sure if this has already been stated but....
from a purely personal point of view i would have to go with the 25. For the same reason that in an infantry attack you don't make every one stand together, in an 88 everyone sat up front, in a glasshouse. As soon as rounds start hitting the 'pit that plane is going down.
Max damage with minimum effort on the aggressors part.

Ive always wondered that myself.

Any -88 experts have some data on that? Was the -88 easier to shoot down because of all the crew located in one section?

 

[Erich]

not real sure here...........are we comparing the B-25 with what Ju 88 Variant ? bomber or recon or ?

will tell you when the Soviets were using the Mitchell in the night time role and even though they were quite fast several NJG pilots flying the old Do 217 crates actually caught them and brought them down

well just two cents

 

[davparlr]

not real sure here...........are we comparing the B-25 with what Ju 88 Variant ? bomber or recon or ?

will tell you when the Soviets were using the Mitchell in the night time role and even though they were quite fast several NJG pilots flying the old Do 217 crates actually caught them and brought them down

well just two cents

Which is just worth that since many capable aircraft have been brought down by less worthy aircraft. We can always find examples. I'll bet you can find some Ju-88s shot down by B-17s.

 

[Erich]

at night ? ........... nope ! during the winter of early 44 daylight raids, yes, NJG 2 and 3 Ju 88C's were lost attacking B-17 formations.

your comments are noted, and my first statements STAND, bomber or recon Ju 88 vs B-25 Mitchell

 

[Twitch]

If it's of any use in ballistics the 12.7 mm X 99 M2 had a 48.5 gram projectile that fired at 750 RPM and 870 meters per second muzzle velocity. The MG 131 was 13mm X 64 with a 34 gram bullet at 900 RPM and going 730 m/s at muzzle.

How about the Japanese "50s" which have even better stats?
Ho-103 (Type 1) 12.7 x 81 (38 g) 900 rpm 796 m/s
Type 2 13 x 64B (34 g) 900 rpm 720 m/s
Type 3 13.2 x 99 (52 g) 800 rpm 790 m/s

 

[Soren]

Twitch, the MG131's 34 gram HE round did 750m/s...

 

[Jank]

Soren, it's a little ridiculous to be raising a difference of 20 meters per second (about 65 feet per second).

Truth be told, if you were to take two brand new MG131's right off the factory line and shot them across chronographs, you would likely see similar velocity differences. One might be avweraging 720ms and the other might be averaging 750 ms.

The same holds true for sporting rifles which are manufactured with much tighter tolerances and quality control than mass produced, get them out as quick as you can, military arms.

I have read tests of two brand new 30/06 Remington rifles (same model) shoot with an average of about 40 feet per second difference.

There are also variations in the quality of ammunition rounds. A 30/06 rifle might experience a standard deviation of 25 feet per second from bullet to bullet from the very same box of ammunition. Sporting (hunting) ammunition is of very high quality compared to military ammunition even today let alone back in WWII.

Ever so slight variations in the chamber, throat, rifling, and barrel cause such differences in velocity when a cartridge sends a projectile out of the barrel in front of more than 50,000 psi of pressure.

 

[Erich]

Jank what fg does your Jug represent ?, name and the art on the cowling ?

nice touch !

 

[Soren]

Jank,

No its not ridiculous, its another 20m pr. sec.

Also if the weapons are made with the same tools and with the exact same specifications, then whatever deviation that might occur during firing is 99% contributed by the fired round itself. Relatively large variations in V0 caused by the weapons themselves occur only when we're talking two different made weapons, otherwise its ammo-inconsistency. (Or a faulty barrel ofcourse, but then you'll notice real quick cause then either accuracy will be appalling or the v0 will be really low !)

I have two K98k's myself, made in different factories in different years, and loaded with full power ammunition from S&B they don't ever vary more than 10 m/s between each other(Atleast I haven't experienced more than that the many time I've had them chrono'ed), and usually they don't vary at all really -there being only 1-3m/s between them.

So if there's a deviation from the official figure, which was the measured average for German weaponry back then (and still is), then its 99% ammo-inconsistency.