Best Aircraft in Many Different Roles Part II

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hello Udet,
in the past I've seen many of your posts and I pretty much always agree with you. Now it's no different. However, there is nothing you're telling me that I hadn't in the back of my mind when I was writing my post.

So also ... in parts:

I mentioned the Schnellbomber (one word - sorry nitpicking here) concept to point out the difference in how both the Mosquito as the Ju 88 were designed to rely on speed above anything else to get away from enemy bombers. Does any bomber that doesn't have the necessary speed, categorize as a bad bomber? Surely not, and like I said, the speed of the Ju 88A was more than ok. It's less than ok when you consider what the aircraft gave up for aerodynamics: tail and side gunners and a large internal bombload. The latter also meant that the maximum speed dropped when carrying an external load.

"Most of its bombs" carried externally? Are you sure? Got to check that out.I'm sure. Check it out.

Any allied medium bombers whose speed you might want to compare with the Ju 88?
The B-26? B-25? Vickers Wellington?
The old Whitworth Whitley which is definetly inferior to every German medium bomber...In fact the maximum speed of any of those medium bombers remained either inferior or matched to that of the Ju 88 A, so if i follow your logic the speed of any allied bomber in the ETO was mediocre.
Glad you agree with that. So do you also agree that 470 km/h was the minimum for bombers of the second half of WW2? The bombers of that era are the A-20J, A-26, Tu-2, Buckingham and B-29. Am I forgetting any?

Ok so again, the speed of the Ju 88A was ok but hampered by the fact that it carried most of its bombs externally.
Yet, you give the dive bombing argument to counter the importance of a large bomb load. That doesn't make sense.

Finally, the fact the cockpit was cramped did not result in poor performance of the bomber.
Where did I say this? I said its gun arrangement was folly. That's why I provided the model image even though that only shows half of it. It doesn't show the stupidity of the frontal gun arrangement. Try shooting down an aircraft with that...
rcepting fighters.

You bet a Ju 88 A that had delivered its bombload over England was in a better condition to return to base if compared with the case of a B-17 or B-24 over the Reich during 1943 or 1944.
There's a world of difference between 1943 and 1944. To be sure, in 1944 it was 10 times safer to be in a B-17 over Berlin than in a Ju 88 over Dover in 1940 (daytime). The B-17 would stay in enemy territory for hours while the Ju 88 could 'hop over' to the Channel and be back in an hour! So you really can't compare. But even then, the B-17 managed to get through to the center of Germany with acceptable losses until Schweinfurt.


Can you prove that. There were different versions of the Ju-88 that were designed to perform specific roles such as night fighter and they performed rather well and with good decent performance.
Click to expand...
Adler, that's not how these things work... Soren makes an unfounded statement which I challenge. Then he had to prove which improved versions he's referring to.
Also,we were talking about the Ju 88A bomber so it's irrelevant for you to come up with night bombers and such. What's more, these arguments are false. The Ju 88 nightfighter of 1942 was the Ju 88C which couldn't even get to 500 km/h. You really want to compare that with a Mosquito NF?
And when we look at the bombers in 1942, it was still the Ju 88A-4 which was produced as the standard bomber. The Ju 88A-14 didn't show much improvement. Both were no radical improvement over the Ju 88A-1 of 1939. In 1943 you had the Ju 188 which was outdated before it entered production. (It was called a stop-gap for something.)

Kris
 
" ... Soren makes an unfounded statement which I challenge. Then he had to prove which improved versions he's referring to."

There's been a lot of that going around lately.
 
Civettone said:
Adler, that's not how these things work...
Click to expand...

How does that not work. I can say what I please...

Civettone said:
Also,we were talking about the Ju 88A bomber so it's irrelevant for you to come up with night bombers and such.
Click to expand...

No it is not. You said that the Ju-88 was a mediocre aircraft. You did not mention a specific varient in the part and therefore I gave you proof that the aircraft was an adequate aircraft.

Also one more thing. If you disagree with someone and that is anyone on this forum, that does not make them irrelevent. Choose your words wisely...

Civettone said:
What's more, these arguments are false. The Ju 88 nightfighter of 1942 was the Ju 88C which couldn't even get to 500 km/h. You really want to compare that with a Mosquito NF?
Click to expand...

Negative they are not false. You know why? I never said the Ju-88 was a better night fighter than the Mossie. I said the Ju-88 was a good night fighter. It served well for its purpose against the British bombers. Go to the Nightfighter thread and you will see that no one is stupid eneogh to say the Ju-88 was overall better than the Mossie. I think you are reading too much into this thread and only understanding what you want to understand. If I am wrong, please excuse me.


Again you shooting past everything that we have been saying. No one is saying that the Ju-88 was the overall best aircraft, what we are saying is that it improved (even if only somewhat) and it served well and in many roles.
 
Civettone said:
...Instead the Ju 88 was a bomber with mediocre speed, range and a lousy internal bomb capacity and defensive gun arrangement.
Kris
Click to expand...

Hi Civ/Kris.

I understood you very well but the part above quoted was what prompted first my inquiry later my "bigger" posting.

You said the speed of the Ju 88 was mediocre there didn´t you? during the initial stages of the war the speed of the Ju 88 A was more than ok Civ...the maximum speed of fighters in service of any combatant nation during the BoB era did not reach the 600km/hr barrier...the Ju 88 A had a maximum speed of ~480km/hr against the barely 540km/hr of the Hawker Hurricane Mk. I; yup, the difference was sufficient to catch up with the enemy bomber but not what you´d call a critical difference and there are many first hand accounts i have from RAF fighter pilots who got tricked by the manouverability of the Ju 88, and had to see the medium bomber escaping back to France at full speed.

Now compare the speed scenario of German medium bombers of 1940 -which were of course the only type of bomber they had available to carry on with their offensive over England- with that one can observe in the case of the allied air fleets of heavy bombers during 1943 and 1944, where the bombers would be ~200km/hr slower than the prop-driven German interceptors -and even slower when flying like pigs with the bombload still inside-...and more radically as twice as slow when the attacker was the Me 262.

So that is why i was kind of surprised to read you´d consider the speed of the Ju 88 mediocre.

I am of course aware 1943/44 was kind of a very different world in aerial warfare when compared with 1940, i know that Civ. But the comparison is to some extent valid. During 1940, and following the bomber doctrine of the Luftwaffe, medium bombers were the mainstay of the kampfgruppen just as the USA guys brought their fleets of heavy bombers as the main type of plane.

I do not think i agree it was safer to be in a B-17 over Berling during 1944 than in a Ju 88 over England Civ. As i stated here, the Ju 88 had the chance to attempt manouvering to shake off a pursuing enemy fighter, a steep dive, and many times it worked for Ju 88 pilots during 1940. Now see the B-17, the large metallic tube with four engines uncapable of virtually anything regarding manouvering...yes give the crewmen all those .50 cals to make them feel safe, but the B-17 and B-24 crews got gutted by German interceptors Civ.

I agree 470km/hr can be rated as the "minimum" speed requirement for bombers during the second half of the war, but please note by that such time the Ju 88 had the nightfighter role as the main role and was by then fitted with more powerful engines and the speed had been increased to 580km/hr. (Ju 88 G-6)

In case you are interested Civ, read on the "What of the Me 410" thread where we´ve discussed the defensive armament of German medium bombers, do not have time to discuss that here today.

Cheers!
 
No it is not. You said that the Ju-88 was a mediocre aircraft. You did not mention a specific varient in the part and therefore I gave you proof that the aircraft was an adequate aircraft.
Here I said that the Ju 88 is a mediocre bomber. I hope that clarifies it.

Also one more thing. If you disagree with someone and that is anyone on this forum, that does not make them irrelevent.
I couldn't agree more, my friend. But respectfully, I think that was the right choice of words. I was talking about the Ju 88 bomber. You started talking about the NF. As such your comment is irrelevant. Above that, I also disagree with the Ju 88C being a good NF but that's just my opinion. But still, your night fighter argument is irrelevant. No pun intended. (And I would never call people irrelevant even though that is what you were implying - see quote).

Negative they are not false. You know why? I never said the Ju-88 was a better night fighter than the Mossie. I said the Ju-88 was a good night fighter. It served well for its purpose against the British bombers. Go to the Nightfighter thread and you will see that no one is stupid eneogh to say the Ju-88 was overall better than the Mossie. I think you are reading too much into this thread and only understanding what you want to understand. If I am wrong, please excuse me.
No need to excuse you because you're entitled to your opinion and I don't respect you any less.
My reply to this follows from my previous statement. Soren said Why choose the 1939 Ju-88A for comparison with the 1942 Mosquito ?? There were better versions of Ju-88 by that time So then I said there were no better versions. You then said there were better versions such as the Ju 88C night fighter.
So again with all respect - and I mean that - it's you that reads what you want to read from it. This happens quite often with long discussion, and many times I screw up. But just not this time.

No one is saying that the Ju-88 was the overall best aircraft, what we are saying is that it improved (even if only somewhat) and it served well and in many roles.
Agreed!

Kris
 

Hi Udet,

In all honesty I don't really disagree with you. Perhaps it's just a different viewpoint: I cannot say the Ju 88A was slow, and I cannot say it was fast either. So ... I call its maximum speed mediocre just like I would call that of the B-25 or even B-26 mediocre. A while ago I say a figure of the max speed of the Ju 88A with 2 x 1000kg or with 4 x 500kg but I cannot find it again... In any case, most allied bombers carried most of its bombload internally, so please consider that when you're comparing bomber speeds.

A final remarks, the Ju 88 could outmanoeuvre its opponent but let's be honest... that's hardly a consolation, or do I really have to believe that the u 88 has a better roll or turn rate than the Hurricane?? The B-17 didn't try this, not because it couldn't but because the Americans used the close formation strategy. Quite possibly the B-17 manoeuvred like a stranded whale but that's not important because it wouldn't have mattered in the American strategy of combat boxes.

I will try to find that Me 410 topic. Although I haven't posted much - I spend more time at Luftwaffe Experten and JPs Panzers - I have been a avid reader of topics here at WW2aircraft.net and have enjoyed many of them, including many posts by the regulars, including you.

Kris
 
Civ, hi again.

Of course all bombers flew at lower speeds when carrying a full bombload.

I am thinking you are not thinking i am thinking the Ju 88 A had a smaller turn or roll rate when compared with RAF fighters the model faced during 1940 are you?

Basically what i am saying here is the Ju 88 could provide a skilled and well trained crew with the opportunity to find the way out of a situation involving enemy fighters by means different to that of defensive armament.

This resource was by far more feasible and effective than the only resource B-17/B-24 crews had at their disposal during 1943/44 over the Reich -referring to their .50 cals to "defeat" enemy fighters-.

It is, again, undeniable that seasoned Ju 88 bomber pilots during 1940 managed to trick RAF fighter pilots and made it back to base in France. Yes, a much lighter, single engined plane manned by one pilot many times failed to intercept Ju 88s -larger twin engined plane with a crew of 4- because of the capabilities of the plane and the skill of the German pilots.

So no, you do not have to believe the Ju 88 was more nimble than RAF fighters of 1940 simply because it was not Civ; there is, however, one thing you should believe and that is the fact the bomber vs. fighter scenario as seen during 1940 over England represents the narrowest "gap" in performance between bombers and fighters deployed in combat.

And the bombload of the Ju 88 and the two other main types proved so adequate you know there was a moment during the BoB when it seemed the Luftwaffe was in fact going to gut the RAF and its ground facilities...until fateful decisions took the whole issue to different directions.

After that, and with the arrival of the 8th AF then the 15th AF in the ETO, and also as a consequence of combat doctrines each country had conceived, the whole scenario, as you correctly pointed out, was an entirely different one.

The guys of the USAAF knew their bombers were large, clumsy and heavy, so they put to test the silly doctrine of self defense armament as the fundamental and only mean of survival of the bombers; it took only a few months and several thousands of pilots and crewmen dead to prove them very wrong. If anyone would come and say it was not only defensive armament but also the soundness of the bombers i will say something similar about the German medium bombers of 1940: i have a good deal of photos of He 111s, Do 17Zs and Ju 88 A-4s making it back to base with very bad damage keeping in mind the rifle-caliber guns fitted to RAF fighters during the BoB against the certainly heavier guns of the Luftwaffe during 1943/44...ask Erich about the brutal effectiveness of German ammo against bombers.

So the gap in performance between the main bombers in action and the fighter scrambling to intercept them grew and grew, all German fighters being comfortably capable of catching up with the bombers and leaving them all behind with utmost easiness..
 
Hi Udet

I am thinking you are not thinking i am thinking the Ju 88 A had a smaller turn or roll rate when compared with RAF fighters the model faced during 1940 are you?
Click to expand...
Wait a sec... ... No, I'm not thinking that.


This resource was by far more feasible and effective than the only resource B-17/B-24 crews had at their disposal during 1943/44 over the Reich -referring to their .50 cals to "defeat" enemy fighters-.
Click to expand...
What makes you say this? Do you have figures to support this? I would think the German bombers got a bigger beating than the American B-17s when you take the exposure time and the number and quality of the interceptors into the equation.


one thing you should believe and that is the fact the bomber vs. fighter scenario as seen during 1940 over England represents the narrowest "gap" in performance between bombers and fighters deployed in combat.
Click to expand...
I want to believe it, but I'm also thinking of the German bombers versus the interceptors of countries like Russia and France...


That's an outdated theory. The RAF could not be defeated. First of all, because BC and CC were still intact. FC could always retreat further north where they would do some R&R. I could provide with some good sources that show that the Luftwaffe units were draining empty, they could not keep up with their losses - dead or captured. (Same story for FC but they could recuperate half of their pilots, and they still had BC ready to act in case of an invasion with the weakened Luftwaffe unable to prevent it.) The switch to night attacks was also inspired by the strategical defeat of the Luftwaffe.
But back on the Ju 88, weren't more Ju 88s lost than He 111s even though there were about twice as many He 111s? How can you explain this? And IIRC the Do 17 lost about the same number versus total operational.


No, the doctrine was set before the US joined the war. Even if the B-17 turned out to be manoeuvrable, they would still have used the box formations. The stayed faithful to this tactic until the end of the war, because it proved succesful when used in combination with escort fighters. Bombers shot down thousands of German fighters, and contributed to defeating not only the Luftwaffe but Germany itself.

I like pictures and first-hand stories and whatever ... but I try not to draw too many conclusions from them if statistics are available. Especially the 'ruggedness' of aircraft are a common claim. I've seen the same being said about pretty much every British, American, German or Russian bomber... So thanks, but I'll just stick to the official number of how many German bombers were shot down by a relatively small number of British fighters who according to you had the smallest speed surplus you could find.

Kris
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Why do that? It is fact though that the 2 most versatile aircraft of WW2 were easily the Ju-88 and Mossie follwed by the P-38 and Fw-190. Now the places of these aircraft can be argued.
Click to expand...

Okay lets get one thing straight, I never said any thing to minimalize the achievements of the mosquito or Ju 88, I know these type were unequaled in their multi role accomplishments. My original thread even listed the Mossie, I do not think the PBY could out pluralize these machines, only that for a flying boat
it did a hell of a job in this cappacity. Lanc I conceed to your statement about
lg bomber streams of D.H.s bombing civil targets, I somehow overlooked or didn't
absorb these facts in my readings/watching His channel. I gave up the last time as it was a long day, and it seemed to be decaying into a pissing contest and frankly I was about out of piss.
 
What makes me say German bomber pilots had better chances of escaping interception if compared with the very poor guys of the 8th AF flying in the clumsy B-17/B-24 tubes?

Very easy Civ...and i told you this: speed and manouverability of their bombers, especially the Ju 88 A.

German bombers: especially Ju 88 and Do 17.

- Fast (by 1940 standards when compared with enemy fighters of the moment).
- Manouverable (by 1940 standards).
- Capable of absorbing damage (keeping in mind the ammo fired by British fighters during the BoB).
- Well defended (all crew located in the forward -nose- section of the bomber manning several defensive machine guns of the same caliber of British fighters.)

USAAF heavy bombers: B-17 and B-24.

- Slow.
- uncapable of manouvering.-
- Capable of absorbing combat damage. (But please read below)
- Well defended. (Due to the large number of .50 cals).

The essential element in defining whether a bomber was fast or slow is the type of enemy fighters it was confronted with. Although the maximum speed attained by a Ju 88 A during 1940 and a B-17 of 1944 could be nearly identical, they did not face the same type of enemy interceptors, get my point?

While it is widely known and accepted the B-17 could take barbaric punishment and take the crew back to base, i do believe such capability has been greatly overhyped...let´s not forget that by early 1944 Germans refined their methods and ammo: 21 cm rockets, guns and cannons of heavier calibers and of great destructive power were fired at the bombers and thousands of them were pulverized with the crew inside.

German bombers during the BoB were never confronted with such occurences and many many times German bomber crews returned to base in France with a badly damaged He 111, Do 17 Z or Ju 88 A. The only Brit fighter fitted with cannons by the time was the Spitfire Mk. I B but were so few and their weapons useless.

So if you take a closer look it seems the German medium bombers of 1940 are more likely to escape interception if compared with the large clumsy tubes of the USAAF during 1943/44.

The heavy bombers of the 8th, 9th and 15th AFs did not shoot down that too many German fighters. You say they shot down thousands of German fighters...i am not so sure about that.

For every German fighter the bombers shot down no less than 5 heavy bombers were destroyed by them german boys, so try to figure the math out...get the number of heavy bombers destroyed by the Luftwaffe and you might then have an approximate idea of the number of German fighters lost to B-17s and B-24s.

Russian fighters. I was of course focusing my viewpoint in the aerial combat over western/northern europe...but if you want to talk about the aerial warfare in the east the russians were clearly behind the western ally; i can say that when Barbarossa was launched the Ju 88 was faster than the main soviet fighters...I-16 and I-153...talk about being superior.
 
Comparing performance of JU 88 with other bombers: JU88A-1 top speed of 286 mph and bomb load of 3960 lbs. JU88C-6 top speed of 311 mph. Douglas A-20G top speed of 317mph, bomb load 4000 lbs
 
I'm sorry Udet but your argument is void - you're comparing medium bombers with heavies and in their basic roles at the start of WW2 both the JU-88 and Do-17 suffered at the hands of the RAF and later VVS (when they got their sh*t together) when they were assembled in mass and attempted to bomb in large formations as they did in the BoB. Although you claim that many shot up bombers retured to France, many of them never flew again. It's when these aircraft came down on the dirt (the Ju 88 and Do 17) and were used in a more tactical role and when they were developed into fast attack aircraft and fighters that they did shine.

As far as your claim about the USAAF not destroying as many fighters as claimed, I agree somewhat but again I think your numbers are still skewed - if they were as you claim the Luftwaffe would of been able to deal with the 8th AF bombers AND marauding fighters - somethings as history tells us, did not happen.

BTW a B-24 with a "light" bomb load was very maneuverable - just don't get a hole in the wing or loose an engine...
 
You also have the tendancy to support your pro-Luftwaffe stand with accounts of veterans and of "I've seen images of ..." while you pretty much refute the same accounts on behalf of the allies.

I would prefer to stick to statistics. The Germans lost a lot of planes in the BoB though the situation was easier: short distance missions and relatively slow interceptors with nothing but MGs.
What's more, your champion the Ju 88 suffered more losses than the Do 17 and He 111. The latter was the slowest though received only half of the Junkers losses.

And to conclude, what is now your proof that German bomber pilots had better chances of escaping interception if compared with the very poor guys of the 8th AF flying in the clumsy B-17/B-24 tubes?
I also have my doubts about 5 heavy bombers shot down for every German fighter. What is this based on?
Kris
 


fLYBoy hello.

I am simply comparing the performance of bombers that were the workhorses of each air force in specific period of times.

If the kampfgruppen committed to bomb England during 1940/41 could have had heavy bombers -four engine- to fly combat missions then i would be comparing them with the heavy bombers of the USAAF of the 1943/44 period.

Medium bombers were the only kind of bombers the Luftwaffe had to wage aerial war for 1940/41 while the USAAF´s B-17s and B-24s bore the brunt of the battle only a couple of years later.

I do not see how the comparison could be considered void.

Although Germany never really intended to invade much less occupy England, in reality trying to prod the Brits onto the negotiation table to attain peace, the objective of the bomber force of the Luftwaffe over England during 1940/41 was similar to the goals outlined by the USAAF and RAF bomber fleets during 1943/44, so to me it seems the comparison is valid.

Do not forget i am not suggesting bombers could surpass the performance of fighters...also not forgetting the cases of the I-16 and I-153 which were slower than the Ju 88; the I-153 barely surpassing the speed of the He 111. Bouncing could virtually be the only choice for those aging fighters to shoot down the Ju 88.

Where there any periods of the war when German fighters could not catch up with any allied bombers medium or heavy alike? 8)

I agree there were many times when German bombers returning from England had to written off due to bad damage, but exactly the same thing can be told about the USAAF heavies flyboy; how many of the B-17s which survived the Schweinfurt slaughter had to be written off upon return to base?

Look i will have to rescue my papers but i clearly recall the heavy bombers did not shoot down that many German fighters and that the exchange ratio remained -at minimum- 4 bombers destroyed for each German fighter shot down by the defensive guns, if not higher than that figure.

I was once told by some guy that the "actual" ratio remained close to 1 fighter shot down per 1 heavy bomber brought down: crap. My response to the gentleman was that if such a thing had been true, then the doctrine of the heavy bombers would have been proved correct and escort fighters would have never been required. But we know such a thing did not occur and the losses of the USAAF were so horrible that by the end of 1943 the allied air forces could not yet dare to affirm the battle would be won.

Cheers!
 

You can call it whatever you want Civ; to you i am "pro-Luftwaffe", while in my view i am "Anti-bull*hit" wherever it comes from, i do not care. The point being it is mostly and mainly arguments that put down the Luftwaffe we get to hear or read about.

I will definetly not discuss in here the way you apparently want me to, but i´ve been "lucky" enough to have a family that to some extent is connected with the military and with people who were there; so talking and hearing such people helped me discover most allied accounts are crap, big time manipulated and distorted.

Also i will rejoice to dispute your argument the Luftwaffe had "an easier" scenario during 1940; it would be the very first time in history of wars when a sole branch of the armed forces of one nation -the air force- had been requested to achieve the ultimate goal of forcing the enemy to conclude its participation in a war. Nobody quite knew how things would progress, not the Germans not the Brits.

You bet that the "i´ve seen images..." thing has been of great help; the example of the Bf 109 G-6/R6 depicted on most accounts as "no match against enemy fighters" -a tale i had swallowed- is of great value; watching guncamera of that particular version getting tailed by USAAF fighters helped me learning allied accounts lied and that the plane was more than capable of shaking off its pursuers.

The BoB is manipulated from its very outset when Winston the Liar made a speech in the house of commons right after the French collapse. You can not expect to have accurate figures from a battle that has been distorted by the propaganda machinery even before its commencement and much less objective when during such battle the hated enemy failed to achieve its goals...

So i guess that when you say the Ju 88 suffered higher losses than any of two other german bombers you are proving "my champion" was a bad plane or something like that. Tell me, do you consider the difference between Ju 88s and say He111s lost in action critical?

I will conclude this by telling you the only thing coming from the allies that is 100% true and will neither admit doubt nor debating is the fact Germany surrendered meaning they won the war. Everything else can be subjected to more than reasonable doubt and inquiry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
3
Views
437
Airborne2001
A
What (or what would) make a good tactical recon aircraft in World War II
Replies
10
Views
1K
ColFord
Sten SMG aircraft: productionized aircraft part 1, the reality
7 8 9
Replies
162
Views
9K
Wild_Bill_Kelso
G
How many Night Fighters did Bomber Command shoot down?
Replies
2
Views
1K
mig2830
M
Best "general purpose" prop fighter also capable of best high altitude performance
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
PAT303
P
Menu
Log in
Register