B-25 vs. Ju-88

[davparlr]

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

That is a very good question since both of these planes were adapted to so many different missions. I tended to keep my research to bomber vs. bomber since comparison data is more handily available. Most other missions don't match up so well like the B-25 was not used as a night fighter (not due to lack of capability but rather to lack of need) or dive bomber (I'm not sure the Ju-88 was great at this anyway). However, the B-25 and Ju-88 did have an antishipping mission and I am interested in tonnage destroyed by each. Also, loss per mission on antishipping runs would also be interesting. Also, ground attack capability of both could be compared as both had success. The fact that both of these planes were so adaptable and capable, which made them great, inspires great discussions and debate.

 

[Glider]

I am wondering at some of the statements made in this forum in particular the concept of a B25 landing on a carrier without any arrestor gear. Landing a spit on the wasp was considered close to a miracle and it stopped I think it was 40 ft from the Bows. This was an RAF spit bound for Malta that had a fault with the drop tank.
Trying to do that with a B25 which is many times heavier and comes in much faster would be a one way trip into the ocean. Does anyone have any evidence to back up the claim.

The other statement that because the Ju88 didn't fight in the Pacific it couldn't of done I also find a little suprising. As far as I know and to the best of my recollection the Germans were not at war with Japan and had enough US and UK aircraft to fight on their own doorstep.

I suspect the Japs would have loved to have some JU88's in 1941. By Jap standards it was fast well protected and carried a large bombload.

Could a stripped down Ju88 take off from a carrier. Of course it could. It was lighter, had a better wing loading and a shorter take off run.

I have to agree with FJ in that the cockpit of the Ju88 was a bit of a mess. Most German twins from the early war period had messy cockpits. The 110 had some of the engine instruments mounted on the engine and the 111 was all over the place.

 

[Erich]

the Ju 88 cockpit was crap and crowded according to the Luftw. vets.

as to anti-shipping missions, Chris Goss dual book through Classic Pubs is a nice way to go although deliberately brief in it's concept. he has tons of stuff on anti-shipping for the Luftwaffe which I have tried to "push" him in that direction for a much larger work(s)

if anything the Ju 88 in it's later variants proved to be a skilled recon and of course the G was the ideal N.F. platform for the Luftw useage agasint the RAF, all other German proposals for night fighters were failures by 1945, even the proven Bf 110G-4 was being phased out with units other than NJG 1

 

[Jank]

Erich, it is Capt. Earl Miller's mount. 350th FG, 345th FS "Devilhawks" stationed in Italy.

Soren said, "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."

No, you are wrong. Any variatons due to ammunition alone (99%)would not consistently favor one gun (1%) over another to the degree it does. Think about it.

"(At least 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."

With all due respect Soren, you are full of ****! Only 3 to 9 feet per second difference between the two? The standard deviation (SD) for the ammunition is much greater than that.

Do you know how the standard deviation is calculated in a statistical analysis? Even if the velocity differences attributed only to the guns amounted to 3-9 fps, a SD in the ammunition of even 25 feet per second would require you to fire and record the velocities of more than 100 rounds in each gun in order to factor it out. You do understand that don't you?

Something tells me that you have not undertaken such a experiment.

BTW - What the Hell is "full power ammunition"? As opposed to what? Do you know what the SAAMI specs are for the 8x57? (chuckling at Soren trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about)

 

[syscom3]

I am wondering at some of the statements made in this forum in particular the concept of a B25 landing on a carrier without any arrestor gear. Landing a spit on the wasp was considered close to a miracle and it stopped I think it was 40 ft from the Bows. This was an RAF spit bound for Malta that had a fault with the drop tank.
Trying to do that with a B25 which is many times heavier and comes in much faster would be a one way trip into the ocean. Does anyone have any evidence to back up the claim.

In 1992 I talked with some of the Doolittle raiders at a print signing ceremony and one of them mentioned that there was an idea of flying them back to the carrier. Of course an arresting hook would have been needed. Nothing complex about installing one.

The other statement that because the Ju88 didn't fight in the Pacific it couldn't of done I also find a little suprising. As far as I know and to the best of my recollection the Germans were not at war with Japan and had enough US and UK aircraft to fight on their own doorstep.

I didnt say it couldnt be done. I just said that liquid cooled engines have a tendency to get damaged at the very low levels they would have een expected to fight at. And then couple it with the long ranges it would have to fly back home to and the loss rate would have gone up.

I suspect the Japs would have loved to have some JU88's in 1941. By Jap standards it was fast well protected and carried a large bombload.

The Japanese were more than happy with their aircraft in 1941

Could a stripped down Ju88 take off from a carrier. Of course it could. It was lighter, had a better wing loading and a shorter take off run.

But did it have the acceleration required? What about being a tail dragger? That slows a plane down for a bit.

 

[Soren]

No, you are wrong. Any variatons due to ammunition alone (99%)would not consistently favor one gun (1%) over another to the degree it does. Think about it.

What gun are you talking about ?? And what ammunition ??

With all due respect Soren, you are full of ****! Only 3 to 9 feet per second difference between the two? The standard deviation (SD) for the ammunition is much greater than that.

Why thank you Jank for that first remark of yours, I suggest you go try it though!

Try shooting the 8x57IS round from S&B, 5-10 at a time, record the results - there's nearly no difference! Or if your good at handloads that could be an option as-well...

Do you know how the standard deviation is calculated in a statistical analysis? Even if the velocity differences attributed only to the guns amounted to 3-9 fps, a SD in the ammunition of even 25 feet per second would require you to fire and record the velocities of more than 100 rounds in each gun in order to factor it out. You do understand that don't you?

Something tells me that you have not undertaken such a experiment.

I didn't say I did scientific study did I now ? All I'm saying is the V0 hasn't varied more than 10 m/s between my two guns during any chronograph test of mine, and *why* is simple - they are of the EXACT same design and specifications.

The S.D. of the S&B 196gr round is around 11 fps. - This is for properly stored ammunition however I feel I must add.

BTW - What the Hell is "full power ammunition"? As opposed to what? Do you know what the SAAMI specs are for the 8x57? (chuckling at Soren trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about)

Hahaha ! You mean you don't know oh wise gun-expert ??

+50,000 CUP, std.German military load my friend, try it ! Heck it'll even go higher than a 30.06 at the top ! So scrap those pussie SAAMI loads !

A 12.8 gram projectile will hit around 795-800 m/s through the Karabiner Kurz at that pressure, now thats smoken !

Make sure its not a 1888 Mauser model you're firing the full-power 8mm ammunition through however, or it'll blow your face off - there's a reason SAAMI loads are so low, there's allot of dumb folks out there...

 

[Jank]

Soren,

The 99% figure came from you as in "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."

So what gun and ammunition were you referring to? Sounds like you were making a sort of blanket statement in general.

I do handload. I have a Springfield M1A and an Armalite AR-15 and handload for both. I also handload for .45ACP and 12 GA shotgun.

"All I'm saying is the V0 hasn't varied more than 10 m/s between my two guns during any chronograph test of mine"

You said that "usually they don't vary at all really -there being only 1-3m/s between them."

I think usually means most of the time as in 10m/s would be out of the norm from the usual 1-3 m/s. As I have already said, you are full of crap. Since we're on the subject of crap though, where did you get your 11 fps SD on the 196 gr load at 2,600 fps -- cause that's crap too.

50,000cup is no different than a 30/06. The case capacity of the 8X57 is 5 grains less than the 30/06. No, it won't "go higher" than a 30/06. The limiting factor is the strength of the action and not the cartridge.

As you may know (although we both know you don't), the hotter you load a cartridge, the more radical the SD becomes. Again, you are full of **** if you are saying that your 2,600 foot per second load at 50,000cup is varying by only 11 feet per second.

Soren, why don't you just admit that you have never fired a real gun and at any rate, don't own a chronograph and don't handload.

 

[lesofprimus]

That last statement was alittle steep Jank... Ease up a bit and try to converse it through...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good post up there Glider and I agree with you on everything.

I too am interesting in Ju-88 shipping tonnage as well as B-25. I know that info is out there somewhere, maybe someone has it.

 

[wmaxt]

Actualy the B-25 could and did land on an aircraft carrier. The Navy did tests of several aircraft including B-25s for arrested landing trial and cat shots. The B-25s did great except for one occasion where the pilots seat was not locked and the seat moved during the launch.

I belive it was R Lenard who posted those pictures, and they are on this forum.

BTW: a C-130 was also landed WITHOUT arresting gear on a carrier (the Oriskany, I think) in the early '60s.

wmaxt

 

[Glider]

Syscom
Putting an arrestor gear on any plane may not be complicated but does involve the one thing the raiders could not afford, weight.
I was always taught the base line, that if you add a pound of weight to the airframe and want to maintain the same performace, speed, range, climb etc then you ended up adding ten pounds to the take off weight. Wouldn't take much to get through another 1000lb.

The arrestor gear and hook is but one component the, the additional strengthening of the airframe would be a major contributor to the gain in weight. They may well have thought about it but it wouldn't have got much further.

As for the Japanese being happy with their aircraft in 1941, they had good reason to have confidence in their aircraft. However I know they had a huge admiration of the Fw190 (and who wouldn't in 1941) and had mixed feelings about the 109E liking its speed and armour but not being so keen on its agility. What I don't know, is what they thought of the German Bombers but the Ju88 carried around 5,000 lb of bombs and most Jap bombers only carried around 2000Ib so a certain respect was likely.

Wmaxt
I remember the post about landing various types of plane on a carrier and would to have seen it. Do you have any idea what it did to the weight of the aircraft in question?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed as well Glider.

You can not just add most components like that to an aircraft without strengthening and modifying the airframe. With the force that the plane is landing without the strenghtening it would rip the airframe apart.

 

[syscom3]

Syscom
Putting an arrestor gear on any plane may not be complicated but does involve the one thing the raiders could not afford, weight.
I was always taught the base line, that if you add a pound of weight to the airframe and want to maintain the same performace, speed, range, climb etc then you ended up adding ten pounds to the take off weight. Wouldn't take much to get through another 1000lb.

An arrestor hook does not weigh 1000 pounds.

The arrestor gear and hook is but one component the, the additional strengthening of the airframe would be a major contributor to the gain in weight. They may well have thought about it but it wouldn't have got much further.

The -25 airframe proved very robust and it could have handled a couple of carrier launch/land cycles.

As for the Japanese being happy with their aircraft in 1941, they had good reason to have confidence in their aircraft. However I know they had a huge admiration of the Fw190 (and who wouldn't in 1941) and had mixed feelings about the 109E liking its speed and armour but not being so keen on its agility. What I don't know, is what they thought of the German Bombers but the Ju88 carried around 5,000 lb of bombs and most Jap bombers only carried around 2000Ib so a certain respect was likely.

The Japanese had no desire for the German aircraft in 1941 or 1942. The Japanese had their own doctrine and tactics that the German aircraft couldnt do. Their "Betty" bomber was faster and longer ranged than the -88, and they had no interest in it. More than one German military attache's were told that the IJAAF/IJN types were perfectly capable of handling allied aircraft in the PTO.

 

[syscom3]

Agreed as well Glider.

You can not just add most components like that to an aircraft without strengthening and modifying the airframe. With the force that the plane is landing without the strenghtening it would rip the airframe apart.

General Doolittle and the NAA engineers thought it was perfectly feasable to add an arrestor hook to the -25 to allow it to return to the carrier.

But the idea was dropped when the navy said they were not going to wait around for the bombers to return.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am not saying that it could not be done. On the contrary it is very likely that it could have been done, what I am saying is you can not just install a damn arrestor hook. You have to strengthen the fuselage.

Hell even when we install a new antenna to our helicopters we have to double and strength the fuselage, what makes you think it would not have had to be done for an arrestor hook on a B-25.

Trying to land a B-25 with an arrestor hook without doing that would have caused damage to the airframe.

 

[V-1710]

In addition, a one shot deal is different than doing it on a regular basis.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Exactly.

 

[syscom3]

I am not saying that it could not be done. On the contrary it is very likely that it could have been done, what I am saying is you can not just install a damn arrestor hook. You have to strengthen the fuselage.

Hell even when we install a new antenna to our helicopters we have to double and strength the fuselage, what makes you think it would not have had to be done for an arrestor hook on a B-25.

Trying to land a B-25 with an arrestor hook without doing that would have caused damage to the airframe.

B25 = robust 1930's technology with lots of margins

Blackhawk = modern technology with no margins

Note to Deradler......... I didnt know you were a B25B airframe specialist. When did you learn about the airframe?

 

[syscom3]

In addition, a one shot deal is different than doing it on a regular basis.

So an arresting hook is added. I suppose the plane willno longer be airworthy. Maybe in the RAF your airframes couldnt handle the stress's of carrier landings. To the folks at NAA, no big deal. B25 had lots of extra strength to handle the stress's.

 

[Erich]

Soren the 88P series never flew in action they were prototype test pieces that failed miserbaly on the test field

the 88G-1 Nachtjäger had 4 forward firing 2cm in a underfuselage tray like the G-6, not 6 2cm unless you are counting SM installation which many times was not fitted to the G-1