Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
One of the things I didn't see in Dave's analysis was the cruise speed and range with max load at that range?This is part of the problem of comparing small and medium bombers. It is very difficult, at least for me, to obtain data on these variables that actually compare. Not all of the aircraft in my sources have cruising speed, nor are they consistent in the value of range they state, often never stating what the conditions are at all.
The next question is what Mission profile is the basis for comparison? Medium altitude precision bombing, low level attack, long range night strikes, dive bombing? all of the above?
All very good comments. It is hard to nail down what a medium bomber is. In WWII, there were many aircraft handling many different roles. In today jargon, the bomber role has evolved into three categories, with heavy bombers evolving into strategic bombers, light and medium bombers becoming attack aircraft, and fighter-bombers are fighter-bombers. Of course the strategic bomber roles are still well represented by the B-52 (in cruise missile mode), B-1, and B-2. With the demise of the FB-111 and A-6, the only dedicated attack aircraft is the F-117 (in spite of its designation), which is about to fade away, probably being replaced by the F-35, fighter-bomber. The AF is presently looking into developing a "medium" stealth bomber. The fighter-bombers have certainly gained prominence, I think mainly due to increased threat, and possibly, to most of the movers and shakers in the AF and Navy being fighter pilots.
They are all good and versatile aircraft
Very true.
The allies were blessed with great attack aircraft that, with heroic crews, an took the battle to the enemy.
A-20
B-25
B-26
A-26
Various Naval aircraft (although they didn't have a medium bomber available until after the war)
Mosquito
Certainly the Ju-88, and I am sure others, fall into this list with their heroic crew.
Dav, I agree with you that a Corsair can't be considered as a bomber. I still don't believe a JU88 can be considered in the same category with a B25 or B26 but I guess it is really a question of semantics. The Ju88 could carry 4000 pounds of bombs but most had to be carried externally. As a bomber, it was a failure during BOB. Not as effective as the HE111 but maybe that was because the Germans thought it could operate un escorted. The B25 and B26 could and did operate unescorted. They had much heavier defensive armamment that the JU88 and I suspect they were faster with a full load of bombs aboard. However, I still say the JU88 should be compared with the likes of the A20, perhaps the Beaufort or even the Mosquito
I agree with all you say.
Proof? Define "far superior."Ju-88 bombing accuracy was far superior to level bombers such as B-25 and B-26.
HyperWar: The Battle of Britain--A German Perspective
In 1938, "even well-qualified bomber crews could achieve only a two percent bombing accuracy in high-level, horizontal attacks (up to 13,500 feet), and twelve to twenty-five percent accuracy in low level attacks against targets of between 165 to 330 feet in radius
Ju87B-1 could deliver a bomb with an accuracy of less than thirty yards.
Ju-88 could deliver 50 percent of its bomb load within a 50-meter circle.
I still don't believe a JU88 can be considered in the same category with a B25 or B26 but I guess it is really a question of semantics. The Ju88 could carry 4000 pounds of bombs but most had to be carried externally.
The B25 and B26 could and did operate unescorted. They had much heavier defensive armamment that the JU88 and I suspect they were faster with a full load of bombs aboard.
These were later war models more contemporary to the A-26. They also appears to not be much of an improvement over the Ju-88 and defensive armament seems to have been problematic.IMHO the aircraft that really should be compared to B25/26 is the Ju 88E (aka Ju 188 ). it had cannons in its defensive armament, so I am bit sceptical about the "much heavier defensive armament".
Gee, with that kind of accuracy, Germany should have won the war! But then again you can put a 500 pound bomb in a pickle barrel with a Norden bomb sight from 20,000 feet!
There is no way anyone could say one bomber's accuracy was better than another UNLESS you show documented proof of sorties, bombs dropped, targets hit (confirmed by both sides) and base this on a similar sortie/ bomb load comparison as well as the TYPE of bombing being compared. Not taking anything away from the Ju.88, B-25s and B-26s, by virtue of superior numbers, saturated their targets. How accurate was the Ju.88 in "Skip Bombing"? Oh wait, did the Ju.88 ever do "skip bombing"?
Joe, if I may chip in:
Bomber versions of Ju-88 were dive bombers, so they should in theory bomb more accurately than a bomber making a bombing run from, say, 15000 ft. On the other hand, use of 'parafrag' and 'parademo' bombs while flying above tree top was also accurate, like the 5th Airforce B-25s demonstrated in SW Pac.
The skip bombing was a matter of crew training, not a matter of this or that plane; obviously, the bigger and/or slower plane, easier the target for ship-based AAA to harm the incoming plane.
These were later war models more contemporary to the A-26. They also appears to not be much of an improvement over the Ju-88 and defensive armament seems to have been problematic.
How often were JU-88s actually used as dive bombers?
I an not talking vertical dives but any attack steep enough to call for the use of the dive brakes?
If the majority of attacks were either from the level or from shallow dives then the dive bombing accuracy is something of a misdirection.
A number of aircraft had built in/designed in abilities that were seldom if ever used. Many early B-25s and B-26s had the ability to carry a torpedo even though their crews were never trained to do so. Does this make them better than the Ju-88?