B-25 vs. Ju-88

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Agree'd, but what else does it have to shoot at other angles besides "frontwards"?

It had 2 other machine guns in the canopy housing the cockpit 1 facing the rear and one facing the front, it had 2 machine guns in the nose, 1 facing the left, and 1 facing the right, and it had 1 machine gun in the belly, and had provisions for 2 more machine guns, 1 on the bottom and 1 on top that could also traverse.

[Jank]

And all 7.9mm.

Round for round, each had less than 1/4 of the energy as the .50 BMG.

[Soren]

No some of them 13mm's, and with its very efficient incendiary projectiles it was a pretty good equal to the .50 cal. In any case the forward facing armament on some Ju-88's was truly massive with up to 6x20mm cannons in the nose or two 37mm Flak38 cannons in a belly rack.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well here is how I look at it:

In pure bomber role: B-25
Anti Shipping: Ju-88
Night Fighter: Ju-88

Both were great aircraft and I have to agree that it depends on the mission. I give it overall to the Ju-88 though because of the versatility. There are not many aircraft built during WW2 that were as versatile as the Ju-88.

Now for those that said the Ju-88s bomb load was not comparable to that of the B-25, you are very wrong:

B-25A: 3000lb
B-25B: 3000lb
B-25C: 3200lb
B-25D: 3200lb
B-25G: 3000lb
B-25H: 5400lb
B-25J: 2000lb

Ju-88A-4: 5511lb

Now for those that said the B-25 could not carry Torpedos you are also wrong. The B-25H and the B-25J could carry a 2125lb Torpedo.

Now having said this, both aircraft were outstanding aircraft but the B-25 does not run away with it as some people here seem to think (probably because of only one reason which I will not go into). They are about equal with some areas the Ju-88 being superior and the B-25 superior in others.

Ju-88 has the edge though, even if only by a c*** hair.

[Glider]

I know the point has been made earlier but why are we comparing the 1939 Ju88A4 against a 1942 onwards B25.

Wouldn't the Ju188 be a better bet or even a later Ju88?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You are correct, but that would put the Ju-88 or Ju-188 at even a slight more edge over the B-25 and that would not be good for there argument.

[delcyros]

When it comes on anti shipping (in which both planes recorded excellent)
other factors may play a role. Cockpit layout should be adressed first.
Survivability and target size isn´t unimportant as well.
If it comes to the ultimate evolution of both, we should include A-26 and Ju-288/388 (the Ju-288 beeing the best medium bomber but did not reached mass production).

[Glider]

Thats what I getting at.

[Jank]

I didn't realize that some of the machine guns on the 88 were 13mm. Yes, somewhat close to the .50 BMG. I believe the MG 131 had a higher cyclic rate of fire.

MG 131 (13mm)
projectile weight - 36.2 grams
velocity - 730 ms

M2 (.50)
Projectile weight - 43.3
velocity - 880 ms

[Soren]

Just a little addition - with a 5,511 lbs bomb load the Ju-88 would have next to nothing in terms of defensive and offensive armament.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Jank

I didn't realize that some of the machine guns on the 88 were 13mm. Yes, somewhat close to the .50 BMG. I believe the MG 131 had a higher cyclic rate of fire.

MG 131 (13mm)
projectile weight - 36.2 grams
velocity - 730 ms

M2 (.50)
Projectile weight - 43.3
velocity - 880 ms

There's no doubt that in terms of KE the .50cal was superior, but the MG131's incendiary projectiles were superior and pretty much made up for the lack of KE with a larger surface damage caused on impact.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

1. Recon, Photo - limited use here. Visual Recon w/hand cameras
2. Bomber
3. Long range anti shipping - from the Phillipines to the sea of Japan with "Bat" guided rockets. The Bat's were wing mounted and bombay tanks were used.
4. Antishipping
Never used as a dedicated fighter but one pilot got five japanese aircraft (including several fighters) and B-25 pilots got a fair number of kills
5. Transport
6. Cannon armed attack
7 Ground Attack

aren't you being a little pedantic, several of those are the same role with a different gun= same role, and taking recon pictures with hand camera's doesn't make it a recon aircraft, more could proberly be gathered from the bombing picture.........

The B-25 was very versatile

the Ju-88 was the most versatile aircraft of the war, the only one that comes close is the mossie, i suggest you don't continue that point as an argument........

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by Soren

There's no doubt that in terms of KE the .50cal was superior, but the MG131's incendiary projectiles were superior and pretty much made up for the lack of KE with a larger surface damage caused on impact.

MG 131 ammo:

13mm APT
710 m/v
38.5g mass
0g HE content
9703.93 Kinetic Energy j
0 Chemical Energy
9703.93 Total energy j

13mm API
710 m/v
38g mass
2.2g HE content
9577.90 Kinetic Energy
9482 Chemical Energy
19059.90 Total energy j

13mm HEI-t with 1.4g PETN +.3g Thermite
750 m/v
34g mass
1.4g HE content
.3g incendiary content
9562.50 Kinetic Energy
8415.68 Chemical energy
17978.18 Total energy j

13mm Incendiary
770 m/v
32g
2.2 g HE content
9486.40 Kinetic Energy
13224.64 Chemical energy
22711.04 Total energy

M2 .50 Browning Ammo:

.50 Tracer (M1)
872 m/v
42g
15968.06 Total KE
0 Total HE
15968.06 Total energy

.50 Ball
893 M/v
42g
16746.43 Total KE
0 Total HE
16746.43 Total Energy

.50 AP (M2)
880 M/v
43.3g
16765.76 Total KE
0 Total HE
16765.76 Total KE

.50 Incendiary (M1)
899 M/v
41g
2.2g Incendiary content
16568.12 Total KE
9482 Chemical Energy
26050.12 Total energy

Seems to me that the .50API is the best round either gun fired, HE or otherwise. It had a relatively good amount of filler, a very high M/v and excellent AP characteristics.

The 13mm may of had a higher proportion of HE, but its rounds were lighter and slower, poorer exterior ballistics to the .50 rounds.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by delcyros

When it comes on anti shipping (in which both planes recorded excellent)
other factors may play a role. Cockpit layout should be adressed first.
Survivability and target size isn´t unimportant as well.
If it comes to the ultimate evolution of both, we should include A-26 and Ju-288/388 (the Ju-288 beeing the best medium bomber but did not reached mass production).

Agreed 100%.

Originally Posted by Soren

Just a little addition - with a 5,511 lbs bomb load the Ju-88 would have next to nothing in terms of defensive and offensive armament.

Agreed as well, that was just not my point.

[syscom3]

The B25's were also carrier capable.

Dont tell me the -88 could get airborne with a usefull payload within 500 feet.