The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

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

Ratsel said:
true that!

but even if half or a 1/3 of the Luftwaffe claims were legit... hmmmmm... and we all know the Allies were dreaming to when it came to the same thing (overclaims).. :D
Click to expand...

and you still end up with a non comparable result, simply because of the operating procedures of the opposing air forces, and by that I refer to section leaders getting first strike on any attacks at the expense of thier rotte and the allies totally different rest sytem, not to mention the actual number of enemy aircraft with whom to engage!

its a fools game trying to claim superiority when your not comparing like with like or even have any real understanding of war, and bear in mind huge numbers of "experten" died at the hands of alledged inferior pilots!
 
and bear in mind huge numbers of "experten" died at the hands of alledged inferior pilots!

I can get into a billion reasons why experten died, but thats for another thread.

'I await your answer with interest'.

I'm afraid that no matter what I say, it will be unsatisfactory, so I'll pass.

while the Lancasters Halifaxes only killed innocent civilians, which is a gross slur on Bomber Command.

not really that much of a gross slur. BC gave orders to bomb civilian targets with no hint of factories or military installations, did they not?
 
Last edited:
Ratsel said:
and bear in mind huge numbers of "experten" died at the hands of alledged inferior pilots!

I can get into a billion reasons why experten died, but thats for another thread. you can scrabble around as much as you like, those men fought and died in combat with other aircraft, just like thier victims!

while the Lancasters Halifaxes only killed innocent civilians, which is a gross slur on Bomber Command.

not really that much of a gross slur. BC gave orders to bomb civilian targets with no hint of factories or military installations, did they not?
Click to expand...
just like guernica?
 
Mildly more on topic, some claims made about the B-17 were made which I don't think were covered enough, the use of defensive formations so they can cover each other for example, didn't really work. They were still shot down in droves, it was the eventual fighter escort that made the difference. Don't kid yourselves that B-17s were so amazingly accurate that they didn't kill civilians either!
 
Ratsel said:


I'm afraid that no matter what I say, it will be unsatisfactory, so I'll pass.
Click to expand...


I think you pass because you know it was not the best "bar none" as you call it. If it were, you would provide facts that prove it, and happily do so.

If you were to argue that it is "the most versatile" or "one of the best" then you would have a reason to stand. You however chose to use the words "bar none", now back it up.
 
Last edited:
the lancaster kicks ass said:
Mildly more on topic, some claims made about the B-17 were made which I don't think were covered enough, the use of defensive formations so they can cover each other for example, didn't really work. They were still shot down in droves, it was the eventual fighter escort that made the difference. Don't kid yourselves that B-17s were so amazingly accurate that they didn't kill civilians either!
Click to expand...


I got our American friends to finally agree that the Lancaster was the better bomber in the ETO.
The RAF were much better at precision bombing.. that is all well documented.

The only point I had to sort of concede was that the SuperFort was the next generation bomber and therefore more a little more technically advanced than our beloved Lancaster.

Cheers
John
 
:shock: I said that :?::!: :shock:

I'd like to issue an apology if I ever did say that, it must have been a very long time ago. I was young, stupid and didn't know what I was saying.
 
Ratsel said:
. BC gave orders to bomb civilian targets with no hint of factories or military installations, did they not?
Click to expand...
So what? They were only following the lead of the air force which bombed Guernica, Rotterdam, Hull, Coventry, Exeter (not renowned for their factories and military installations,) and I don't recall any Lancaster gunners mowing down civilian refugees, as was done in France. During a recent interview, one ex-Lancaster pilot faced some hostile questions, including,"Didn't you feel guilty, dropping bombs on civilians?" "Not really, I just felt, each time, that it was one back for Coventry."
Edgar
 
Last edited:
Ratsel said:

'I await your answer with interest'.

I'm afraid that no matter what I say, it will be unsatisfactory, so I'll pass.
Click to expand...


Adlers response says it all really. You cant complain if we dismiss your claim then as mindless drivel, unworthy to be even considered in this discussion.

Sure, you were in for a spirited debate over your remarks, but then, if the issue was as clear as you suggested, you would have no trouble in demolishing our counterarguments
 
Well, since our pretentious young friend wont post the capabilities of his pet aircraft, I guess I have to.

This is an extract from U-Boat net that gives a pretty good commentary on the capabilities of the type


"The Junkers Ju 88 was one of the most versatile and effective combat aircraft of World War II. Its closest counterparts on the Allied side were the Mosquito and Beaufighter. The German aircraft was larger and slower, but nevertheless very effective. 14,676 were built, including a staggering 104 prototypes for its 60 different versions.

Like the Mosquito, the Ju 88 originated as a fast bomber. In 1935 the Luftwaffe had a requirement for a so-called Schnellbomber, which should have a speed of 500km/h with 800kg of bombs. This was much faster than the biplane fighters that then equipped the German fighter units; it was even faster than the first models of the Bf 109 monoplane fighter. For this ambitious goal Henschel proposed the Hs 127, Messerschmitt the Bf 162, and Junkers submitted the designs Ju 85 and Ju 88. Later the Bf 162 achieved some fame when it appeared on German propaganda postcards, but this was disinformation, and the real winner was the Ju 88.

Chief designer was Ernst Zindel. The first prototype (Ju 88V1) made its first flight on 21 December 1936. The Ju 88V1 had an all-metal, stressed skin construction; Junkers hired two American engineers to acquire knowledge about the latest structural developments. The Ju 88V1 had a compact, well-streamlined cockpit roof and a pointed nose. It was powered by Daimler-Benz DB 600 engines, installed in cowlings with circular radiators. The inverted V-12 engines were installed in front of the wing leading edge, not under the wing. Because of the long cowlings the Ju 88 earned the nickname Dreifinger, three fingers. The Ju 88V1 was lost before performance tests could begin, but the type had already shown great promise.

From the third prototype onwards the engines were changed to Junkers Jumo 211, because the scarce Daimler-Benz engines were reserved for fighters. The fourth prototype, the Ju 88V4, featured the "beetle eye" cockpit of the production aircraft, a four-seat cockpit covered with a large number of small, flat transparencies. It also had the ventral gondola under the nose, from which a gunner could fire rearwards. In contrast, the Ju 88V5 was completed with a maximum of streamlining, and on 9 March 1939 it set a closed-circuit record by flying 1000km with 2000kg of load at an average speed of 517km/h. It was a sensational public debut.

Meanwhile, the general staff of the Luftwaffe made some fateful decisions. On the one hand the Ju 88 was given the highest possible priority, with increasing concern expressed as the war came nearer and production still remained behind schedule. On 15 October 1939 Dr. Heinrich Koppenberg was put in charge of it, and given the authority to requisition any production facilities he needed; but the results were still disappointing. On the other hand the Luftwaffe had requested that the Ju 88 would be converted into a dive bomber. This inevitably slowed down the development and reduced flight performance. Installing dive brakes under the wing was the smallest problem: The need to reinforce the structure for dive bombing attacks caused a considerable increase in weight. Larger internal bomb bays and external bomb racks for four 500kg bombs increased the problems, and when the first production aircraft came off the line in August 1939, a number of restrictions had to be imposed. Even after all necessary modifications had been carried out, pilots did not usually achieve dives steeper than 60 degrees, although the excellent flying characteristics and automatic dive bombing equipment of the Ju 88 did not make such attacks particularly difficult. But there was little operational need for dive-bombing, except for anti-shipping missions.

The Ju 88 was certainly an excellent aircraft. It was easy to fly, gentle, responsive, and manoeuverable, without vices. These were the characteristics which also made it an excellent nightfighter. A point of criticism for allied test pilots was the cockpit. The extensive framing of the many panels resulted in a fairly restricted view. In the bomber versions it was also rather cramped and inefficient, although the close grouping of the crew made communication easier.

The War breaks out ...

When the war broke out the Ju 88 was an excellent bomber, but only a handful were available and production was not more than one per week. Just one Gruppe was equipped with Ju 88s. In the third week of the war four Ju 88A-1s attacked British warships at Scapa Flow, but they caused no damage. A Ju 88 had the dubious honour to be the first German victim of RAF fighters, on 9 October 1939, but nevertheless the RAF recognised it as the most formidable bomber of the time. The most important bomber version was the Ju 88A-4, with longer span wings, a stronger airframe, and Jumo 211J engines. It appeared in the summer of 1940. The strong points of the Ju 88 were speed and a significant bomb load. Its weak points were its short range (this was often extended by carrying additional fuel tanks in the bomb bays), a cramped and inefficient cockpit, and poor defensive armament. During the Battle of Britain the Ju 88 proved that it was the best German bomber, but operations from bases in Norway, without fighter escort, still resulted in heavy losses. And as the fight progressed, a shortage of trained bomber crews became apparent.


3 Junkers Ju-88A-4 bombers.
Note the "beetle eye" cockpit glazing and the ventral gondola with gun position.

The more streamlined Ju 88B series did not enter production, but was developed into the Ju 188, the successor of the Ju 88. But in 1942 a new attempt was made to increase the speed of the Ju 88. The resulting Ju 88S had a well-streamlined glass nose, and BMW 801 radial engines or Julmo 213 in-line engines with more power the Jumo 211. On most aircraft no external bomb racks were fitted, the ventral gondola was often removed, and armour was reduced. This increased speed to 612km/h, much faster than most other bombers of the war.

Meanwhile, a very different line of development had begun. The Reichsluftfahrtsministerium (RLM) had granted Junkers permission to pursue, at low priority, the development of a heavy fighter-bomber version. This became the Ju 88C. The transparent bomber nose was replaced by a metal nose cap, containing at first three 7.92mm machineguns and one 20mm cannon -- a relatively modest armament, but many models could carry two more 20mm cannon in the gondola under the nose. There also were a lot of variations in defensive armament. The Jumo 211 engines were retained, because the Ju 88C had too low a priority to get the desired BMW 801 radials. The first production model, Ju 88C-2, retained bomb bays, and it operated as a long-range coastal patrol aircraft, initially flying anti-shipping strikes from bases in Norway. Soon the Ju 88C-4 appeared and its roles were extended to include night attacks on British airfields, ground attack missions, flying escort for transport aircraft, and providing air cover for convoys.

Specifications

Ju 88A-
Engines 2 Junkers
Jumo 211J-1
Power 1350hp
Wing Span 20.00m
Length 14.40m
Height 4.85m
Wing Area 54.50m2
Empty Weight 9060kg
Loaded Weight 12350kg
Max. Weight 14000kg 14674kg
Max. Speed 470km/h at 5300m
Ceiling 8200m
Climb 9850m in 26.4min
Range 2730km 2940km
Armament One 13mm MG131 or two 7.92m MG81 in the nose; two MG81 in the rear of the cockpit, two MG81 in the ventral gondola. Up to 2000kg of bombs. Three 7.92mm and three 20mm MG FF cannon in the nose. Two rearwards-firing MG131 or MG81 guns. Up to 500kg of bombs. Four 20mm MG 151/20 cannon in ventral pod, two upward firing MG151/20, one aft-firing 13mm MG131."
 
Now, a comparison with its main rival, the Mosquito

"The de Havilland Mosquito was one of the most successful aircraft of the Second World War. Only the Junkers Ju 88 could rival its versatily. All this was achieved by an aircraft which encountered great resistance when it was offered to the RAF.

The Mosquito was designed as an unarmed, high-speed bomber. By dispensing with defensive armament the size, weight and drag of the aircraft could be greatly reduced. It was assumed that the resulting small, fast aircraft bomber would be almost impossible to intercept. The de Havilland design team lead by R.E. Bishop, R.M. Clarkson and C.T. Wilkins proposed the design of a twin-engined bomber, able to carry 1000 pounds (454kg) of bombs over 2400km, and able to reach a speed of 655km/h. The staff officers of the RAF and the officials of the Air Ministry where highly skeptic. They had earlier seen how some "fast" bombers had fallen short of the promised performance, or had been overtaken by progress in fighter designs, and became highly vulnerable. Also, de Havilland proposed a wooden construction, which is generally heavier than a metal one, but could be given a very smooth finish. However, a wooden structure was certain to deteriorate in a tropical climate, an important consideration for the RAF.

The project proceeded hesitantly, and would probably have been cancelled definitively without the support of Sir Patrick Hennesy. Finally, a small series was ordered, as reconnaissance aircraft. The prototype was built in great secrecy in Salisbury Hall, and made its first flight on 25 November 1940. The D.H.98 handled well and reached 632 km/h, faster than the fighters in production.

The Mosquito was a exceptionally streamlined design. The fuselage was made in left and right halves, which were shaped in concrete rigs and then joined. They were made of balsa wood between two layers of cedar plywood. The rest of the airframe was primarily made of spruce, with plywood covering. The wing was built in one piece, and attached to the lower side of the fuselage structure. The bomb bay was below it. The Merlin engines were put in steel-tube mountings in underwing nacelles, which also contained the main landing gear. The radiators were housed in the extended leading edges of the wing center section, with inlets in the leading edge and outlets under the wing. This was an arrangement which reduced drag and even contributed positive thrust. The cockpit, over the wing leading edge, had seats for the pilot and the navigator. The bomber and reconnaissance models had a transparent nose.

The first production version was the PR Mk.I reconnaissance aircraft, powered by Merlin 21s, which arrived in the summer of 1941. Only a few of these were built, before production was switched to the B.IV bomber. The first Mk.IVs were converted Mk.Is, but from November 1941 on wards the production B.IVs arrived. Originally they carried four 250 lb bombs, but later a switch was made to four 500lb bombs with shortened tail fins. The PR.IV was a reconnaissance conversion of the B.IV. The T.III trainer appeared in early 1942, but was built in relatively small numbers.

From the start, high priority was allocated to a heavy fighter version, and the initial contract was amended so that half the order became fighters. They emerged as NF.II night fighters, with four 20mm cannon, four .303 machine guns, and AI Mk.IV radar. The NF.II became operational in May 1942, somewhat delayed by a shortage of Merlin engines and the end of the German night bomber offensive. Later night fighter models had centimetric AI Mk.VIII or Mk.X radar. The installation of the radar dish in the nose required the deletion of the machine guns.

In June 1942 the FB.VI fighter-bomber model flew, and this was to become the most built Mosquito. It had the four .303 guns and four 20mm cannon of the night fighter, but could also carry two 500lb bombs internally , and from 1944 on wards they were equipped to carry four rockets or a 500lb bomb under each wing. A variation was the FB.XVIII, sometimes called "Tse Tse", in which the four 20mm cannon were replaced by a single 57mm Molins cannon, which weighed 715kg and fired 6lb shells. Only two .303 guns retained, and additional armour was installed. These were originally intended as anti-tank aircraft, but because the 57mm cannon was obsolete in this role they were directed to Coastal Command.

The high-altitude performance of all models was greatly increased by the installation of Merlins with two-stage compressors, as installed in the PR.VIII, B.IX, or NF.XXX. The B.XVI introduced further refinement, with 'handed' engines to eliminate torque, and a pressure cabin. Some were fitted with bulged bomb bay doors, and could carry a single 4000lb (1814kg) bomb.

The Mosquito soon made its mark in many roles. It became the standard night fighter of the RAF, replacing the slower Beaufighter. They defended Britain against small numbers of German bombers, claimed 486 V-1s, escorted British bombers over Germany, and in "intruder" units they flew offensive missions at night. The bomber versions equipped the Pathfinder Force, marking targets for the heavy bombers of Bomber Command, and were used for light night attacks on German cities. Until the night fighter version of the Me 262 jet appeared (in small numbers) in 1945, the Germans did not have an effective defense. The fighter-bombers attacked precision targets throughout Europe with bombs and rockets. The long-range reconnaissance versions complemented the PR Spitfires. They were also used by the USAF, that assigned the designation F-8. Perhaps the most unusual version was the Sea Mosquito TR.33, a highly modified version which was designed for carrier operations -- a plan that was abandoned when the war ended.

Coastal Command had seven squadrons equipped with the FB.VI, and later also received the 27 FB.XVIIIs. The Mosquitos were used for anti-shipping strikes, mainly against coastal traffic. Because this brought them within the range of land-based Luftwaffe fighters, good performance was essential. But the coastal convoys were also well protected with anti-aircraft guns, and attacks were dangerous.

The Mosquito fights the U-boats
From November 1943 on wards the Mosquito was also used to attack U-boats shortly after, or just before they entered a port. Warning of these opportunities was provided by code breakers. At that moment the U-boats travelled on the surface, and therefore were vulnerable to rockets or the 57mm shells of the FB.XVIII. For safety, the U-boats usually formed small convoys, with an escort of mine sweepers or so called Sperrbrecher ships, which had hulls reinforced with concrete as a protection against mines; both types bristled with anti-aircraft guns. For example, on 27 March 1944 six FB.VIs and two FB.XVIIIs attacked a convoy towards La Pallice, formed by U-960 with a escort of four M-class mine sweepers and two Sprerrbrecher vessels. Three mine sweepers suffered light damage, U-960 was badly damaged, two Mosquitos returned home with serious damage, and one crash-landed.

Total production of the Mosquito was 7781, including 1034 built in Canada and 212 built in Australia.

de Havilland Mosquito
Version B.IV NF.II FB Mk.VI B.XVI
Function bomber nightfighter fighter-bomber bomber
Engines Two 1250hp Merlin XXI Two 1460kW Merlin XXIII Two 1250hp Merlin XXI Two 1680hp Merlin 72
Wing span 16.51m 16.51m 16.51m 16.51m
Length 12.43m 12.43 12.47m 13.56m
Height 4.65m 4.65m 4.65m

Wing Area 42.18m2 41.81m2 42.18m2

Empty weight 5942kg 6093kg 6486kg

Max. weight 10152kg
10115kg 10433kg
Max. speed 612km/h at 5200m 595km/h 611km/h at 3960m 656km/h
Ceiling 9500m 11000m 11000m

Range 1960km 2740km 3033km 2390km
Armament 907kg four Hispano-Suiza 20mm and four Browning .303 907kg, four Hispano-Suiza 20mm and four Browning .303 1814kg"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

tomo pauk
Making the best use of Jumo 211 series?
Replies
16
Views
817
mack8
M
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
887
Shortround6
S
Holtzauge
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
577
Ivan1GFP
I
T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
687
yulzari
yulzari
A
Best Axis four engined bomber?
Replies
9
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Back