Me-210C vs Me-410A

[Civettone]

That's why I specifically mentioned the Ju 88 bomber version in my comparison to the B-25 and B-26. As you pointed out, the Ju 88 heavy fighter and nightfighter versions should not have difficulty defending themselves, but comparing the American heavy bombers to these versions would have been akin to comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, the Ju 88 was proven to be very vulnerable back in the Summer of 1940, suffering higher losses than both the Do 17 and He 111. Both versions had a more effective armament arrangement. As a bomber the Ju 88 was seriously flawed in terms of defensive armament and interior bomb load. I would like to know why anyone would consider it to be superior to the B-25 or B-26 or even A-20. Because it could dive bomb and was a few mph less slow ?

Like Tomo pointed out, the American bombers had what they needed: strong engines, good defensive armament and decent bomb (and rocket) load.

Kris

 

[davebender]

B-18 Bolo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By 1940, most US Army Air Force bomber squadrons were equipped with B-18s or B-18As

The B-25 and B-26 were not operational until 1941. A comparison during the summer of 1940 means the Ju-88A vs the B-18A.

B-18A. 215mph max speed.
Ju-88A4. 317mph max speed.

 

[Civettone]

You are missing the point. The Ju 88 was already vulnerable back in 1940 and suffered higher losses than two other types which were almost 5 years older. Goering himself said that he felt Junkers had betrayed him. Had he known the real performance of the Ju 88 he would never even have ordered the aircraft. I know he is an idiot but it says something about the reason why it was ordered in the first place. Junkers had promised a bomber which could fly around (!) Britain and be faster than any fighter trying to intercept it.

In any case, you were to one who stated that the Ju 88 was superior to both the B-25 as B-26. And that's what I would like you to prove...

Kris

 

[Shortround6]

Since this seems to be turning into an 'German "Uber" Planes' are always superior lets look at a few things.

First JU 88 flies 19 months after the first B-18.

B-18 was OUT of production in 1940.

B-18 could carry 4400lbs of bombs 1200 miles. All bombs inside.

JU 88A-1 was just a bit lower than 317mph. like closer to 280mph and that is running about 3000lbs below MAX weight.

THe JU 88A-1 also has a slight Bomb load vrs range problem. like out of a 5525lb useful load once you deduct 800lbs for a four man crew (with parachutes) and just to be sporting we will include Ammo and oil in that you have 4725lbs left. once you stick in the MAX bomb load of 3960lbs of bombs you have 765lbs left for fuel. Or about 128 gallons US.

Granted the A-4 model had a much higher MAX gross weight to go with it's more powerful engines but then that 317mph still doesn't look so good. Isn't that 317 WITHOUT external bomb racks? Of course with the bomb bay part filled of fuel tank that only leaves room for ten 110lb bombs inside. What does the speed become when not only are the racks fitted but bombs are hung off them?

I will grant you much better than the B-18 but nowhere near the difference that is posted.

And to even things up just a bit how about comparing the JU 88A-4 to the B-23 which did enter production in small numbers in the fall of 1939. Production stopped because the US was not in a shooting war and could afford to wait for the B-25s and B-26s.

B-23. 282mph MAX speed, bomb load 4000lbs, Range 1400 miles.

Very first B25s. 322mph Max speed.

 

[Vincenzo]

Ju 88 A-4 can load 3 tons of bombs and 1.2 tons of fuel and so i can't think that A-1 can load only 1.8 tons of bombs and .35 tons of fuel the, are you checked this number?

 

[Shortround6]

Going by "Green" which may be out of date.

I don't want to use the numbers from wiki unless I have no other choice

Differences between the A-4 and the A-1 Are not limited to just the engines. The A-4 had a bigger wing. was supposed to have beefed up landing gear to handle the extra weight and even had fitting for rocket-assisted-take-off units for use when trying to lift the max bomb load of 6614lbs.

Another question is just when did the JU 88A-4 get the 1400hp Jumo 211Js? Green claims first production samples in late 1940 still had the Jumo 211B-1 engines of 1200hp.

As to the weights I was using, I used an empty equiped weight of 16,975lbs and a loaded weight of 22,840lbs. Performance figures are given for weights of 19,750lbs and 22,840lbs. anoterh book (also by Green) gives a MAX loaded weight of 27,500lbs. All these numbers are for the A-1.

Going back to the A-4 it is listed as having a a MAX loaded weight of either 30,865 or 31,000lbs ( I wouldn't get upset about that variation) The questions are when and with what engines and with what performance penility. Empty equiped weight is given as 21,737lbs.

While the JU 88A-4 might have hit 317 mph without the bomb racks fitted to claim that was it's operational speed on a combat mission is not right.

The American planes MAX speed might have been achieved at less than max weight also but to discount the affects of using an external bombload like the JU-88 used doesn't seem quite fair.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Ju 88 was not the greatest bomber. Not even close. In that sense Civettone is correct, nor can that be really argued. The Ju 88 was much better suited for other roles and duties.

 

[Vincenzo]

in this forum some posted original ladeplan for A-4 empty weight it's around 8.5 tons and max take off around 13.5

here http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/we...oadouts-individual-bomb-sizes-makes-9040.html

 

[Njaco]

and those who contend that the Ju 88 was better may be taking in its total service record where it performed a multitude of duties. Strictly as a bomber it was inferior but as NF, ground-attack, shipping attack, etc puts it on a better level although not an equal one in many cases.

 

[davebender]

I'm not overly enamored with the Ju-88A. However the late war Ju-88G and Ju-88S are so improved (at least on paper) that it makes me wonder how they achieved such huge improvements. Larger engines cannot be the only reason.

 

[Shortround6]

Vincenzo:

Thank you for the reference.


Njaco:

The JU 88 was more versitile. Trying to turn a B-25 into a night fighter would have a joke.

davebender:

When looking at an aircraft one has to take the total mission into account. Too many websites (and books) simply list the best possiable speed, The greatest range (regardless of payload) and the max bomb load a plane could get off the ground with regardless of how far it could actually carry it.

Factor in a few real life conditions like a 100 degree day causing a plane to have both less power and less lift compared to a "standard" 59 degree day for take-off and real life capabilities fall even further behind.

As for the JU 88 S. Try ripping out a good part of the armour, most of the defensive guns, one crew member, getting rid of the gondola that provided for lower rear defense, fitting a more streamline nose cap and leaving off most of the external bomb racks and the dive brakes and for the iceing on the cake, filling the rear bomb bay with a 400lbs of Nitrious oxide installation that held 900lbs of nitrous. Of course this means that you only have the forward bomb bay to put bombs in before they go outside causing large amounts of drag. Some of the longer ranges listed require the forward bomb bay to be filled with a fuel tank so then there are NO INTERNAL bombs. And so far I have not seen speeds listed for carring external bombs.
Maybe the extra speed will keep you safe but it's actual capabilities as a bomber may not have improved all that much, if at all.

 

[davebender]

Aircraft Database

The Ju-88S could carry 2 tons of bombs and still maintain 600 kph.

I have no idea how accurate that web site is.

 

[Shortround6]

Aircraft Database

I have no idea how accurate that web site is.

Well, lets see:

Engine Name : BMW 801 G2

Cylinders: V-18

Something wrong there.

Power : 1730 hp @ 3000 rpm

The RPM is in question.

Machinegun Armament : 1x 13mm MG131 (Tailgun - 750 rounds)

I guess a gun firing out the rear of the cockpit canopy could be called a tail gun but the ammo capacity is about triple what some other sources give.

Of course the picture used to ilustrate it is wrong. Wrong engines, wrong nose,canopy and gondola.

And of course it is asking us to believe that hanging a 2200lb bomb under each wing root is only going to slow the plane down by 10kph.

It may be true but I think I want a better source unless you believe hanging a pair of 500lb bombs under a Mustang or Thunderbolt is only going to slow them down by 10-15kph.

 

[Civettone]

good analysis man !


kris

 

[Vincenzo]

Since this seems to be turning into an 'German "Uber" Planes' are always superior lets look at a few things.

First JU 88 flies 19 months after the first B-18.

B-18 was OUT of production in 1940.

B-18 could carry 4400lbs of bombs 1200 miles. All bombs inside.

JU 88A-1 was just a bit lower than 317mph. like closer to 280mph and that is running about 3000lbs below MAX weight.

THe JU 88A-1 also has a slight Bomb load vrs range problem. like out of a 5525lb useful load once you deduct 800lbs for a four man crew (with parachutes) and just to be sporting we will include Ammo and oil in that you have 4725lbs left. once you stick in the MAX bomb load of 3960lbs of bombs you have 765lbs left for fuel. Or about 128 gallons US.

Granted the A-4 model had a much higher MAX gross weight to go with it's more powerful engines but then that 317mph still doesn't look so good. Isn't that 317 WITHOUT external bomb racks? Of course with the bomb bay part filled of fuel tank that only leaves room for ten 110lb bombs inside. What does the speed become when not only are the racks fitted but bombs are hung off them?

I will grant you much better than the B-18 but nowhere near the difference that is posted.

And to even things up just a bit how about comparing the JU 88A-4 to the B-23 which did enter production in small numbers in the fall of 1939. Production stopped because the US was not in a shooting war and could afford to wait for the B-25s and B-26s.

B-23. 282mph MAX speed, bomb load 4000lbs, Range 1400 miles.

Very first B25s. 322mph Max speed.

B-18 and -23 are larger plane i don't think that it's right compare it to Ju 88, B-25 and -26 also larger (not as 18 23) and are youngest, imho the just US built bomber to compare with 88 is the Boston.

 

[Shortround6]

Original poster said;
"B-25 and B-26 medium bombers served to the end of WWII. The Ju-88 was superior to both."

and later;

"The B-25 and B-26 were not operational until 1941. A comparison during the summer of 1940 means the Ju-88A vs the B-18A.

B-18A. 215mph max speed.
Ju-88A4. 317mph max speed. "

The JU 88 may have been faster but speed does not always mean a better bomber.

The Americans called the "Boston" an attack plane not a bomber in the begining. It wouldn't carry enough bombs far enough to meet American bomber requirements.

If somebody wants to start a thread on best bomber under 31,000lbs or best bomber with a wing under 600sq ft or best bomber with a wingspan under 66ft go for it.

 

[davebender]

I agree. However the U.S. Army Air Corps does not appear to have appreciated the A-20. They used B-25s, B-26s and even B-17s for low level attack missions during 1941 to 1942 while giving most of the A-20s to Russia.

 

[Vincenzo]

Original poster said;
"B-25 and B-26 medium bombers served to the end of WWII. The Ju-88 was superior to both."

and later;

"The B-25 and B-26 were not operational until 1941. A comparison during the summer of 1940 means the Ju-88A vs the B-18A.

B-18A. 215mph max speed.
Ju-88A4. 317mph max speed. "

The JU 88 may have been faster but speed does not always mean a better bomber.

The Americans called the "Boston" an attack plane not a bomber in the begining. It wouldn't carry enough bombs far enough to meet American bomber requirements.

If somebody wants to start a thread on best bomber under 31,000lbs or best bomber with a wing under 600sq ft or best bomber with a wingspan under 66ft go for it.

The boston had around same dimension of 88, that US official designation it's a A don't make it not a bomber, (as for A-26)

p.s. imho all the solid nose US "bombers", both A or B called, aren't bombers but only attack plane, a level bomber need a level bombsight (norton or other) and a bomber

 

[Shortround6]

The boston had around same dimension of 88, that US official designation it's a A don't make it not a bomber, (as for A-26)

I guess it depends on mission requirements. If the US wanted a "bomber" to carry 4000lbs of bombs 500 miles from base and return then the A-20 Doesn't qualify. IF a bomber is is any plane that carries bombs and a bombadier then it does.

p.s. imho all the solid nose US "bombers", both A or B called, aren't bombers but only attack plane, a level bomber need a level bombsight (norton or other) and a bomber

Not really, you only needed one or two planes per group with "glass" noses and bomb aimers. The Americans were big on formation bombing. All planes bomb on signal from "lead" plane.
Same plane is a low level straffer today and medium altitude bomber with a range of hundreds of miles tommorrow, all without changing a thing on the plane. talk about versitile

 

[Shortround6]

I agree. However the U.S. Army Air Corps does not appear to have appreciated the A-20. They used B-25s, B-26s and even B-17s for low level attack missions during 1941 to 1942 while giving most of the A-20s to Russia.

Just how many low level attack missions did the US fly in 1941?