Defeating Bomber Command

Shortround6 said:

It shouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to figure out that a pair of WW I 2pdr pom-poms on hand worked mounts or a pair of hand worked quad .5in Vickers guns were NOT adequate AA Armament for a destroyer. Or that single 12pdr or 4in gun in local control (cartwheel sight and gun captains eye and wetted finger held high for fire control) weren't going to be satisfactory either no matter how steady a course the ship steered.

The vast majority of British destroyers at the beginning of the war had pretty much only maneuver to depend on.

Click to expand...

Be fair the newer destroyers from the Tribal on had the quad 2pd and two quad 0,5 which clearly isn't huge but a lot more than most navies had. US destroyers of the same period normally had 4 or 6 x 0.5, German destroyers did well with 4 x 37mm (but only semi automatic) and 4 - 7 20mm, and the Japanese 4 x 25mm.
I think it would be fair to say that all pre war destroyers depended on their ability to manoeuvre, and that the US vessels were worse off than most.

When did the 'Dido' class of cruisers come in? Their role was primarily anti-aircraft, they weren't much good for anything else.

What about the 'Hunt' class destroyers? I thought their 4" guns were capable of high elevations. There must have been some in service by 1940.

I think the Admiralty was aware of the threat that aircraft posed but as Cunningham said after the Battle of Crete, "The hasty conclusion that ships are impotent in the face of air attack should not be drawn from the Battle of Crete."

Cheers

Steve

The Dido class was a class of sixteen (including the Bellona sub-class) light cruisers built for the Royal Navy. The design was influenced by the Arethusa-class light cruisers. The first group of three ships was commissioned in 1940, the second group (six ships) and third group (two ships) were commissioned in 1941–1942. The Bellona-class ships commissioned between 1943 to 1944.

More info
Dido class Light cruisers - Allied Warships of WWII - uboat.net
Bellona class Light cruisers - Allied Warships of WWII - uboat.net

stona said:

When did the 'Dido' class of cruisers come in? Their role was primarily anti-aircraft, they weren't much good for anything else.

Click to expand...

The Didos werent AA cruisers they were Light cruisers with Dual Purpose armament. I think the original idea was they would act as Destroyer flotilla Leaders and Fleet Scouts. The AA cruisers were the modified Cs and there were plans for the Ds and Es to be modified as AA cruisers as well but there was never the time or equipment apart from HMS Delhi which was rebuilt in the USA.

There were four main sub-classes of Hunt Class, and each one was different. The Type Is began to appear from early 1940 and were very heavily armed for AA work. The weapon suite as designed was 4 x 4/45 QF guns Mark XVI high Angle (HA) guns, 4 x 2pdr in a quad mount. They were originally intended to carry 6 x 4in guns but were dangerously top heavy and from the outset most were finished with four guns. To try and improved stability for AA work they were fitted with stabilisers by Denny but this actually made them worse, because the steady roll of the unstabilised ships became a violent jerking motion that threw the gun predictors out of whack badly. Very late in the war, the quad pom poms were replaced by a twin 40mm bofors, greatly increasing the efficiency of their LAA. Many had 20mm and 50 cal MGs fitted as well.

The type IIs were generally introduced from 1941, were given more beam and displacement increased to 1600 tons. these ships were able to mount the intended 6x 4/45. they were probably the most successful of the Hunts, and many were given priority for radar fitouts

Type IIIs gave up 2 x 4/45s in favour of a torpedo mount . they also mounted a pair of 2 pounder ATG bowchasers because like all the hunts their fatal weakness was a lack of range that prevented them from operating in blue ocean areas. Consequently they spent a lot of time in inshore waters battling E boats and the like.

only 2 type 4s were built, both in 1942, and had the displacement increased to 1800tons, and carried all 6 guns, plus 3 x TT

The most successful early war AA destroyers in the RN until well into 1942 was the L&M DDs finished as air warfare DSDs with 4in guns. These included some familiar names that figured very prominently in some critical AA battles.....gurkha, Lance Lively and Legion. In the latter part of 1942, through to the end of the war, most survivors shipped an additional 10 or so oerlikons additional to the quad 2 pdr they carried from the beginning.

From 1943 new DDs began universally to receive the new 4.5 inch DP gun, vastly superior to the 4in and much more effective over the 4.7

The ASW escorts in the 1940-43 period when air attacks were most prevalent generally were heavily armed for AA work, given their small sizes. The Black Swans were the best armed with 6x4/45 and 4 2pdrs and other guns. The slops and below were lightly armed, but were never really challenged because of where they operated

well before the Diso classes were the AA conversions of the C class Light cruisers. Generally they carried 8x4/45, and initially 6 x 2pdr guns, these were generally augmented by about 10 x 20mm by late 1942. 1944-5 these ships generally received another 4 x 40mm bofors, which meant they ended the war very heavily armed. they also received the first air warfare radars in the RN and were fitted with advanced predictors and FC systems. the RN used them extensively

The Didos were meant to be newer more heavily armed CLAAs with some anitsurface capability as wel. They bore a striking similarity to the US atlantas. As designed, it was always intended to give them 10x 5.25 DP weapons, but there were many variations to this. They were designed to carry 8 x 2 ponders with their main anti surface capability derived from the 6xTT they carried. The 5.25 was a DP weapon with semi-automatic capability. One of their disadvantages was their large TD, which meant they had top keep their distance in tyhe AA escort role. Bonaventure was completed may 1940, with additional units completed in July and September.

The similar Bellona class overcame the TD issue

most ships in this class received 6-8 bofords during the war, and 16-22 20mm guns. Spartan was hit by a Hs293 flying bomb and sunk

fastmongrel said:

The Didos werent AA cruisers they were Light cruisers with Dual Purpose armament.

Click to expand...

I understand that they were to have 'greater flexibility' with their 5.25" guns than the older cruisers which were re-equipped to serve as stop gap anti aircraft vessels. I suppose that would indeed have made the Dido class 'dual purpose'. They seem to have been used extensively in an anti aircraft role.

High speed 'dodging' was a vital defence for smaller ships, particularly destroyers with their woeful anti aircraft defences. Some who were there felt that HMS Gurkha was sunk during the Norwegian campaign because her Captain was a gunnery officer who believed in the efficacy of the AA system and consequently maintained a steady gun platform 'without weaving'. Gurkha had also 'detached from screen to improve arc of fire' thus losing the protection of mutual fire from other ships.

Rear Admiral Hamilton wrote in May 1940 from the cruiser HMS Aurora: "From my experience, I think that provided one has sea room and independence of manoeuvre in a ship of this size, one is most unlikely to be hit."
He wrote this to Admiral Forbes and it was an opinion that might have had dire consequences for any attempted German cross Channel expedition in 1940.

Cheers

Steve

The Didos did indeed operate as AA cruisers but the original intention was a better Arethusa class. Though we know what happens to pre war plans the first time contact was made with the enemy😁

The Dido class didn't start to show up until the summer of 1940 as did the Hunts. The early Hunts had two twin 4in mounts and the quad 2pdr. Later Hunts had three twin 4in and the quad. The first few war emergency DDs after the J,K,Ls had low angle (40 degree) main guns (mostly, shortages meant some ships had single 4in guns on HA mounts).

The Dido class was biased a bit too much toward surface action. The rate of fire of the 5.25in guns was a bit low. The 80lb shells and separate loading meant the rate of fire often failed to meet the book rate depending on weather conditions. A more stable battleship might show a better rate of fire than a light cruiser. Rate of fire in sheltered waters might be a bit higher than rate of fire in a seaway (same for all guns but the heavier shells, cartridges suffer a bit more).

Shortround6 said:

OK, why would would a 900 liter drop tank have less drag than an 1100lb bomb?

Click to expand...

I'll use my reply to your post to answer others

In regards to the Ju 88 bombload range scenario. The Ju 88 had sufficient range to conduct interdiction above the UK. Try this thought experiment. The fuel capacity of the Ju 88 is 3580Litres which at 0.72kg/Litre works out at 5681lbs of fuel. At a sfc of 0.55lbs/hp/hr the 1420ps/1400hp Jumo 211J would get a theoretical endurance of 3.7 hours at full seal level emergency power, an unrealistically challenging scenario.
The ranges this gives would be
@255mph = 943 miles (this is the speed of a Ju 88A4/Jumo 211F with dive brakes and 4 x SC250 (2200lbs of 550lbs bombs). One could assume the operational radius was 40% of that since after bomb release speed would increase.
@317mph = 1172 miles (this is the speed of a Ju 88A4/Jumo 211J without dive brakes, no bomb racks. If 1400kg/3000lbsof bombs were carried by removing the bomb bay tanks fuel and range would halve to 600 miles. This scenario would in many instances require one or two bomb racks in order to carry jettison tanks and might drop top speed by 10mph.
@260mph = 962 miles (this is the speed of a Ju 88A4/Jumo 211J with dive brakes and 4 x SC250 (2200lbs of 550lbs bombs).
@269mph = 995 miles (this is the speed of a Ju 88A4/Jumo 211J without dive brakes and bombs, the bombs appear to be 4 x SD500 (4400lbs)

The published ranges for Ju 88A4 are 1680 miles without bombs and 1260 miles with external bombs. Speed with bomb racks and dive brakes usually seem to come to 297 mph for the Ju 88A4/Jumo 211J. Two drop tanks might have allowed a fighter version to operate to nearly 2400 miles.

By carrying bombs under the port wing and a 900L tank under the starboard would give an extra endurance i.e. 1600 miles with bombs and drop tank.

The Ju 88C6 series night fighters offer clean speeds of around 307 to 312 mph.

It's invalid to compare the Ju 88A4/A5 to aircraft such as the B-25/B-26, A-24 or Beaufighter. Apart from the fact that the Ju 88 precedes these aircraft into service by one or two years and can dive bomb to 60 degrees the other reason being that the Ju 88A paid the price for the supply of BMW 801 engine and the German lack of C3 fuel which might have allowed Jumo 211J engines an easy 8% more power by simply increasing compression ratio, without consequence to FTH, and another 15% on top of that at low altitude if a rich mixture is injected into the supercharger and the engine over boosted.

For the record the Ju 88C3 was intended to be a BMW 801ML based fighter (1560hp using B4 fuel) but did enter production due to engine supply. A Ju 88/BMW801 engine did appear in 1943 in the form of the Ju 88R, the speed is generally published as 570km/h (353mph). More than enough to outrun a Beaufighter, the data on wwiiaircraftperformance.org shows the Beufighters performance as slower but note these aircraft were tested without flame dampers, IFF aerials, long range radio aerials or radar.

If the Luftwaffe do wish to take on the RAF over Britain in 1941/42/43 they need to commit Ju 88's with BMW801 engines and C3 fuel. This is possible from late 1940 and certainly early 1941.

The Germans were extremely slow in supplying Ju 88C fighters. Early Ju 88C were a very poor modification with little more than a single 20mm gun and a trio of rifle calibre machine guns. Mostly Ju 88A4/A5 equipped with a 20mm MG FF mounted in place of the bombsight were used to protect U-boats against allied ASW aircraft a role they were inadequately equipped for.

Part of the reason, apart from the fact that the German navy didn't have its own air arm, is that the Me 110 had been specifically built for airfield interdiction and 'bad weather' fighting.

The Me 109G2 (DB605F engines) had a speed of 369mph, faster than a beaufighter.

In regards to the claims about bomber maximum speed. The following arguments apply to the Do 217 but also in principle to the Ju 88.

The Dornier Do 217E had a maximum speed of 515kmh/320mph.

While the cruising speed is presented as 415kmh/258mph this does not represent the penetration speed of the aircraft. The Do 217N J night fighter with the same engine had a slightly slower speed of 495kmh/310mph (due to the night fighting equipment) but its cruising speed is 470kmh/300mph. So what is going on here? The latter 'cruising speed' is clearly at what for Luftwaffe engines is usually referred to as climb and combat power. In allied parlance military power. It would be at least a 30 minute rating and often an indefinite rating so long as engine temperature limits were observed. The Do 217E could thus penetrate, for 30 minutes, at over 300mph.

A 'cruise rating' whether maximum cruise rating is somewhat arbitrary but I suggest observe the following:
1 Mixture of the air fuel ratio is lean.
2 It is at a altitude and power setting where the throttle is near full throttle height, supercharger likely in first (low gear) so that there are no suction losses in the engine.

Much higher sustained speeds are possible at expense of fuel efficiency.

Speeds of the Me 210 are:
Me 210A1/A2 with DB601F 350mph. This was the version with the short tail and handling issues.
Me 210C with DB605B 360mph. This was the version with the lengthened tail and slats that solved handling issues. No Me 210C were new built, they were reworked Me 210A2 excepting the new build Me 210Ca Hungary built.
Me 110G2 with DB605B had a speed of 369 mph.

The Me 210C had 2.2 x the range and could carry 2200lbs of bombs in its bomb bay with unimpaired speed. I did make a mistake saying the speed was 369 (confused with Me 110).

The Me 410 had a speed of over 388mph on a pair of 1750hp DB603A engines. Engines such as the DB603E (1800hp 1.8km higher FTH), DB603G 1900hp, DB603EM (2260hp) and DB603LA (2260-2400hp) were never fitted.

These aircraft were as fast as contemporary single stage and two stage Mosquito night fighter when weighed down with 20mm guns and radar at the altitudes in question (Mosquito used nitrous at low altitude to catch Me 410).
The failure here for the Luftwaffe was the failure of its engines to keep up in power: the Merlin simply offered 20% more power at higher full throttle height than the DB engines.

Although the Me 410 was capable of steep diving attacks the use of the Stuvi 5B and BZA computer made shallow dives at night practical.

The performance of the Ju 88S series was:
Ju 88S1 374 mph at 6000m/20000ft, this aircraft was available from 1943 onwards.
Ju 88S1 with GM-1 at 8000m/26000ft 388mph
Ju 88S2 with turbocharged BMW801TQ engines 384mph at 10000m/32800ft. This aircraft was available from Feb 44.. It didn't need GM-1. It also used a Ju 188 fuselage which meant it had a more flexible bombay. There was also an Ju 388S3.

These speeds, at the altitudes in question, are the same as a corresponding Mosquito night fighter.

The night fighter version, Ju 88G-7, with the two stage intercooled Jumo 213E engine seems to have matched the Mosquito.

The recon versions of the above were known as the T series (eg Ju 88T-1).

Both were replaced by the Ar 234.

When Ju 88G1 were used as supplementary night bombers the rear bomb bay was used, this sacrificed about 600L (18%) of total internal fuel. It appear that if bomb racks were fitted at all there was only 2.

Very few Ju 88S were converted from Ju 88 airframes. Given their role as pathfinders I doubt the kind of light loads they were to carry would have impaired speed.
Typical loads might include
Schwann-See radio maker buoys, dropped direct into the sea to help navigation and provide makers for Luftwaffe bombers.
Schwann-Luft radio marker buoy but descending on a parachute to 'sky mark' the target.
Schwann-Land radio marker buoy which was deposited on land (eg an field).
Parachute Flare bombs, marker bombs.

For instance in February the Luftwaffe attempted to decimate the RN fleet at Portsmouth with a night time attack of Fritz-X radio controlled bombs. The Flare dropping pathfinders turned up 20 minutes late and the raid disintegrated though had coordination and naviagation been there it might have worked.

Juha, you seem to be down on the Ju 88 as a dive bomber, even in Finnish service. The Stuvi 5B/BZA dive bombing sight was a very advanced exact sight. The pilot needed the experience to dive at the right moment. The Stuvi 5B calculated the impact point of the bombs and moved the cross hairs of the sight. It was an exact solution, no guess work, good standoff distance.


The Ju 88C6 with SN-2 radars is an anachronism as by mid 1943 the Luftwaffe was converting over to the faster Ju 88R and Ju n88G with BMW engines.

For the Luftwaffe in the east bombs were its most effective tank killers. A 500kg or 1000kg bomb within 15-20m of a tank will destroy it, not just score a mobility kill.

As far as I know there were no allied twin engine dive bombers though some were used as such with mixed success.

Back on topic.

If the Luftwaffe is to take the fight to Bomber command in 1941/42/43 it needs to invest in giving its crews the right aircraft. The best they've got is BMW engine Ju 88 with a properly tidied up airframe. I believe the aircraft if appropriately modified can take on a Mosquito if the advantage of the Ju 88 in having 3 crew and more electronics is exploited. A serious effort would require the development of a radar to use over British airspace that would not compromise the Luftwaffe's radar. I suggest they simply use the UK Army 50cm AMES frequency so that RAF attempts to home or jam on it are thwarted by interference with their own systems.

The Me 410 could carry certain loads of 1000 kg but not others. For example one SD 1000 would fit but the SC 1000 would not. Plans were made in early 1943 to modify either the SC 1000 or the 410's bomb bay but came to nothing.
Two SD or SE 500s would fit but two SC 500s meant flying with a 10cm gap between the bomb bay doors which unsurprisingly had a deleterious effect on range and performance. There were plans to develop a special version of the SE 500 specially for the Me 410. The soon to be discontinued SD 500 was already reserved for the Me 410.
The Luftwaffe/RLM was jumping through hoops because it was committed to the Me 410 and its bomb bay was too small.
Oberst Pelz, who was having the type foisted on him as a bomber, is on the record stating that the Me 410 had remarkably poor range and offered little as a bomber. Night fighters need endurance too. He wanted Ju 188s and I don't blame him.
Cheers
Steve

Koopernic said:

...
Juha, you seem to be down on the Ju 88 as a dive bomber, even in Finnish service. The Stuvi 5B/BZA dive bombing sight was a very advanced exact sight. The pilot needed the experience to dive at the right moment. The Stuvi 5B calculated the impact point of the bombs and moved the cross hairs of the sight. It was an exact solution, no guess work, good standoff distance.

Click to expand...

That's in theory and as in the case of the Norden, sometimes it worked in real combat situation, sometimes not. The problem is that according to the Soviet data, the air attacks had minimal impact on the Soviet tank losses during the summer of 44 battles.

Koopernic said:

The Ju 88C6 with SN-2 radars is an anachronism as by mid 1943 the Luftwaffe was converting over to the faster Ju 88R and Ju n88G with BMW engines.

Click to expand...

Anachronism or not, I gave the info from the original German flight tests from which one can cancalculate the real max level speed of the "clean" Ju 88C6 with and w/o the flame dampers.

Koopernic said:

For the Luftwaffe in the east bombs were its most effective tank killers. A 500kg or 1000kg bomb within 15-20m of a tank will destroy it, not just score a mobility kill.

Click to expand...

Same as in the first part of my answer, sometimes Soviet data confirmed German claims of the effective air attacks on Soviet tanks, sometimes not.

Juha

The 2nd TAF's ORS discovered that tanks (specifically) were not destroyed by near misses. A bomb falling 15-20m away did not destroy a tank. They required a direct hit to ensure their destruction. Many tanks were claimed as destroyed by aircraft, both by bombs and rockets, but in fact only about 1% could be confirmed by the ORS on the battlefield. It's interrogations also confirmed that tanks which had received a direct hit were not considered, by the Germans, to be worth recovering which means that the ORS teams definitely counted them.
Heavy bombers were also very bad at destroying tanks as they rarely attained the concentrations necessary to ensure direct hits. This again was confirmed by at least two ORS reports I know of.
Cheers
Steve

Koopernic said:

These aircraft were as fast as contemporary single stage and two stage Mosquito night fighter when weighed down with 20mm guns and radar at the altitudes in question (Mosquito used nitrous at low altitude to catch Me 410).

Click to expand...

I know the Mosquito used nitrous to catch V-1 flying bombs - did they actually do that for the Me 410? Bearing in mind that the V-1 could fly somewhat faster at low altitude than the Me 410.

wuzak said:

I know the Mosquito used nitrous to catch V-1 flying bombs - did they actually do that for the Me 410? Bearing in mind that the V-1 could fly somewhat faster at low altitude than the Me 410.

Click to expand...

I know of two Mossie claims vs Me 410s (of the 68 total, though since these are claims, a number of those 68 will actually have been Ju 88s) in which nitrous was involved. The NO2 was also used in some claims against Fw 190s.

I'd doubt very much that a 410 could match any two-stage Merlin Mosquito for speed, especially with night-time flame dampers. The Hornisse is not my area of expertise though, so I'd be open to seeing some evidence.

In regards to my statement that no ship was sunk by level bombers. I believe this statement to be correct in the sense that no warship was sunk by level bombers. The exclusion being ships in unusual circumstances such as being in dock, harbour etc. For instance German DD Z1 was a blue on blue (Luftwaffe sank it) and it clearly wasn't defending itself, IJN ammo ship Nichii Maru was a munition ship, ocean liners SS California and Duchess of York were ocean liners.

It's worth looking at the sinking of Duchess of York and SS California by Luftwaffe Focke-Wulf Fw 200C in July 1943. The Report of the attack on Convoy "Faith" by the Commander W.B.L Holms of the HMCS Iroqois ( a tribal class destroyer) is here.
Convoy Faith
Convoy Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fast 14 knot convoy consisted of 3 ships: Two liners pressed into service as troopships HMS Duchess of York and SS California and a Freighter SS Port Fairy.
The escort consisted of two destroyers, one of which was a large modern tribal class, another a 1918 era HMS Douglass Admiralty Leader Class (built as a command centre) and a river class (1500 ton) sloop HMS Moyola.

The convoy was attacked by 3 Fw 200C Condors from 15000ft (some accounts give 12000 and 10000).

The first attack was on SS Duchess of York by a single Fw 200C. The aircraft dropped a stick of 4 bombs (4 x SC250 kg) of which bombs 2 and 3 hit directly amidships. Bomb 1 and 4 straddled.
The second attack was on SS California was similarly attacked a few moments latter with a similar result.
Both ships were ablaze and sinking and were scuttled by torpedoing.

The 3rd attack was on SS Port Fairy. Only 2 bombs instead of 4, they straddled amidships.

The 4th attack was on the already hit Duchess of York, two bombs straddling across her bow.

The 5th attack was on the HMCS Iroqoise from lower altitude, about 6000ft. This brought the Fw 200 within range of the 40 mm 2 pdr Pom Poms and the attack was driven of. It's possible the Luftwaffe pilots did not realise they were dealing with a destroyer rather than a sloop.

The 6th Attack was likely on Iroqois or Fairy. The two bombs missed the Iroqoise as the 36 knot ship accelerated and turned.

The Variant of the Fw 200C4 which had the gyrostabilised Lotfe 7D computing bombsight installed. This could track the motion of the target and compute a solution.

The Escorts were equipped with Type 291 air warning radar, a 1.4m radar with a 56 degree beam width, a PPI display that had been developed from the RAF's 1.4m ASV radar by way of an intermediate type known as type 286 (which was hard to maintain on a ship).

It was a well liked radar that gave plenty of warning but was not a AAA fire control radar though it could provide slant range (seemingly not so accurate).

The RN fire control system was known as HACS (High Angle Control System) which gets a poor write up, unfairly so in my opinion. Given the position of the target aircraft as given by optics and also an estimate of target speed and direction HACS would calculate and aim point, fuse setting time, firing time as well as track the aircraft if it went behind cloud. For years the USN had used the MK 24 which was supposedly tachymetric (speed measuring), was in the 5 inch DP turret which was pointed directly from the Mk 24 via RPC remote power control at a very high traverse rate in a turret able to elevate to vertical instead of merely 40 or 55 degrees.

However HACS was modified with GRU (Gyro Rate Units) which in convert with type 285 radar made HACS tachymetric but this seems to have made it only on cruisers and above.

However even in 1943 the modern tribal class destroyers didn't have Type 285. Type 285 was a 50cm radar that gave range to RN AAA both heavy AAA and the pom poms.

The pom pom defences used in RN ships were actually quite formidable. They were aimed by a computing sight however the gun itself was trained by follow the pointer manual control. The 40mm round was deadly and the quad and octuplet guns were water cooled and could sustain fire.

The defect was a relatively low velocity. The 40mm Bofors had a round nearly twice as heavy and a velocity 25% greater and thus nearly 2.5 times the range. This type of gun was truly the most effective.

The Germans had a semi automatic single shot 3.7cm gun with ballistics intermediate to the pom pom and bofors in which a pair of guns must sustain 60rpm. However they became reliant on the 20mm quad FLAK. This has ballistics similar to the POM POM. The gun had a good rate of fire and because two 40 round clips could by loaded while the other gun fired more or less continuous fire was possible. The Japanese used a 25mm triple gun with 15 round clips. They lacked a 37 or 40mm gun. The 25mm gun was a disaster due to its small clips and inability to sustain fire. This is probably why skip bombing worked in the east.

It's obvious that level bombers could hit moving ships especially if equipped with a computing bomb sight. However the fall time of a bomb from 3000m/10000ft is about 30-35 seconds and gives time for warship to turn and avoid.

It's interesting to consider that had the He 177 been in reliable service on schedule in 1941/42 their higher performance compared to the Fw 200 might have allowed them to sink many merchant ships thought their success against warships would have been negligible unless the never activated dive bombing capability came into use.

Before I comment on certain parts of this can I thank you for the effort that you clearly put into this and other responses. Its really appreciated and a lot of it I cannot disagree with. That said I have a few observations.

Koopernic said:

I'll use my reply to your post to answer others


The Ju 88C6 series night fighters offer clean speeds of around 307 to 312 mph.

It's invalid to compare the Ju 88A4/A5 to aircraft such as the B-25/B-26, A-24 or Beaufighter. Apart from the fact that the Ju 88 precedes these aircraft into service by one or two years and can dive bomb to 60 degrees the other reason being that the Ju 88A paid the price for the supply of BMW 801 engine and the German lack of C3 fuel which might have allowed Jumo 211J engines an easy 8% more power by simply increasing compression ratio, without consequence to FTH, and another 15% on top of that at low altitude if a rich mixture is injected into the supercharger and the engine over boosted.

Click to expand...

I believe it is valid to compare these aircraft as they were in active service at the same time doing a similar role. They approached it in a different manner but the role was very similar.

For the record the Ju 88C3 was intended to be a BMW 801ML based fighter (1560hp using B4 fuel) but did enter production due to engine supply. A Ju 88/BMW801 engine did appear in 1943 in the form of the Ju 88R, the speed is generally published as 570km/h (353mph). More than enough to outrun a Beaufighter, the data on wwiiaircraftperformance.org shows the Beufighters performance as slower but note these aircraft were tested without flame dampers, IFF aerials, long range radio aerials or radar.

Click to expand...

By 1943 you are up against the Mosquito which was more than enough to combat the Ju88

If the Luftwaffe do wish to take on the RAF over Britain in 1941/42/43 they need to commit Ju 88's with BMW801 engines and C3 fuel. This is possible from late 1940 and certainly early 1941.

Click to expand...

But in 1940/41 the Ju88 would not have the radar which gives the Beaufighter a serious advantage

The Me 109G2 (DB605F engines) had a speed of 369mph, faster than a beaufighter.

Click to expand...

Again when you are talking about the introduction of the G2 you should compare it against the Mosquito to get a good timeline comparison.

The night fighter version, Ju 88G-7, with the two stage intercooled Jumo 213E engine seems to have matched the Mosquito.

Click to expand...

Again to keep similar timelines I think the Mosquito Mk 30 should be the comparison which had a number of advantages over the Ju88G series. Three squadrons of which had a huge impact on the night war over Germany despite operating without ground control. If the Ju88 had been a close competitor the Luftwaffe wouldn't have put significant scarce resources into the hunt to find anything that could take on the mosquito at night.

As far as I know there were no allied twin engine dive bombers though some were used as such with mixed success.

Click to expand...

I don't now of any allied dive bombers used in Europe. Again its tactics the Allied air forces achieved the same goal using different tactics.

If the Luftwaffe is to take the fight to Bomber command in 1941/42/43 it needs to invest in giving its crews the right aircraft. The best they've got is BMW engine Ju 88 with a properly tidied up airframe. I believe the aircraft if appropriately modified can take on a Mosquito if the advantage of the Ju 88 in having 3 crew and more electronics is exploited. A serious effort would require the development of a radar to use over British airspace that would not compromise the Luftwaffe's radar. I suggest they simply use the UK Army 50cm AMES frequency so that RAF attempts to home or jam on it are thwarted by interference with their own systems.

Click to expand...

There is no doubt that the Luftwaffe would need to equip its aircrew with the right tools but in my mind the Ju88 was never a contender to take on the Mosquito. Generally it lacked speed and if it was 'tweeked' these normally added weight which in turn would impact the performance. It also lacked a comparable radar.

Koopernic said:

In regards to my statement that no ship was sunk by level bombers. I believe this statement to be correct in the sense that no warship was sunk by level bombers. The exclusion being ships in unusual circumstances such as being in dock, harbour etc. For instance German DD Z1 was a blue on blue (Luftwaffe sank it) and it clearly wasn't defending itself, IJN ammo ship Nichii Maru was a munition ship, ocean liners SS California and Duchess of York were ocean liners...

Click to expand...

In fact Z1 was sailing with other DDs at night when the He 111 saw them and two of the DDs openned fire first (not Z1) and the AA fire was the final proof to the He 111 crew that the DDs were hostile. But it is true that when the He 111 made its first attack on Z1, which 1st officer had identified the bomber as friendly, the DD openned fire too late. But during the second, fatal attack Z1 openned fire when it saw the bomber.

Light cruisers like Abukuma are definitely war ships, as were torpedo boats (they were like small DDs, not to be confused with the motor torpedo boats).

And newer RN sloops had better AA than an average RN DD. See e.g. Bittern, Egret and Black Swan classes

On Ju 88G-7, according to Aders' History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917 - 1945 p. 186 it was not mass produced, only 10 - 12 were made and it never served in an operational unit, after completing tests some were flown by a Factory Defence Flight.

And you have not answered my earlier question, from were you would have got the BMW 801Ds and the C3, by limiting 190 production and use or...?

Juha