B-25 vs. Ju-88

[plan_D]

I know how you enjoy arguing with everyone, syscom. But implying that the B-25 is more versatile than the Ju-88 is worse than your Budweiser argument. For the sake of history, don't bother arguing it.

Wrong, the B-25 was not carrier capable. Because it couldn't land again.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The B25's were also carrier capable.

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

The B-25 was not able to either. It had to be completely stripped down of everything non essential and they carried minimal bomb load. If you did the same to a Ju-88 it could do the same, I promise you.

Come on syscom, now you are just getting desperate! You should even know that. That argument that you just through out was a load of ****!

[syscom3]

But the fact remains it flew from a carrier. With a bomb load.

Come now, youre not suggesting the -88 could also fly off a carrier?

[mosquitoman]

I've seen pics of a Hercules on a carrier, so why not a Ju-88?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

But the fact remains it flew from a carrier. With a bomb load.

Come now, youre not suggesting the -88 could also fly off a carrier?

That does not make the B-25 a carrier opperable aircraft.

Besides yes I say you could take a Ju-88 off from a Carrier. Can you prove or do you have any evidence that it could not?

Did not think so, Im throwing that argument of yours out the window where it belongs!

[FLYBOYJ]

A big plus I give for the B-25 is it has a co-pilot, it has a tri-cycle landing gear and how it's defensive armament is spread out. I think the B-25 is way more advanced. Just look at the cockpits...

technik

aiken

Both aircraft were loaded with all types of equipment through out their operational career, but as far as it basic airframe, I give it to the B-25.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

While I agree the co pilot is a plus. I would not really go as far as saying the B-25 was more advanced.

The B-25 deffinatly has a plus in the defensive armament, that has never been argued.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by mosquitoman

I've seen pics of a Hercules on a carrier, so why not a Ju-88?

I dont think you can compare a Hercules with 12,000 hp taking off of a super carrier with several hundred feet with a JU88 with a fraction of the power taking off in less than 300 feet.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

That does not make the B-25 a carrier opperable aircraft.

If it can take off of a carrier, then its a carrier capable aircraft.

Besides yes I say you could take a Ju-88 off from a Carrier. Can you prove or do you have any evidence that it could not?

Do you have any evidence that the -88 can take off in less than 300 feet with a usefull bombload?

Did not think so, Im throwing that argument of yours out the window where it belongs!

Your angry that I thought of the Doolittle raid and the B25's before you did!

[Soren]

FLYBOYJ, I think we both know how decieving 'looks' can be

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

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.

Come on Jabberwocky ! What does this mean in a dogfight anyway ?? Nothing..

With a MV of 770 m/s I can guarantee you that who'ever your pointing your weapon at won't have the slightest chance to react at any range out to atleast 1000m. It takes the average human being 1.5 sec's to observe and then start a reaction on anything, by that time the round has already travelled 1km. And with the MG131's 13mm projectile's larger destructive force on impact, I'd at the very least call it the equal of the .50cal.

[davparlr]

[quote=

does a late-ish B-25 Vs. an early 88 seem odd to anyone else?
.......[/QUOTE]

Note that I said a "late" 88A, like in an A-4 (seems like later As were special designs). Probably a B-25C/D was more appropiate, but the arguments are the same.


[quote= how'd you figure that one out? the B-25 was still in it's prototype/experimental stages as the NA-40 in 1939...........[QUOTE]

The late 88A (like A-4), that I was comparing the B-25 to, was also not available in '39. What I apparently poorly explained was that if you were to fly either of these aircraft with loaded bombs over an environment like Britian in 39, you would want to be in a B-25.



[quote= aren't you putting a little too much focus on armament, let's not forget the Ju-88 was actually used as a fighter as was pretty good at it, no matter how many guns some varients of the B-25 had i'm still giving it to the Ju-88, so what if the B-25 got some bombers? that's no basis for it being a good fighter.......[/QUOTE]

Even if the Ju-88 is more agile than than the B-25, in a turning maneuver, it would have to pull a lead which would place the attacker in the line of fire of the tail and top turrets. And since the B-25 may (some of my source say) be slightly faster, and certainly not a lot slower, the Ju-88 would not have a lot of attack options. Wasn't the fighter version of the Ju-88 a night fighter? Also, apparently the exuberant Russians successfully used the B-25 as a fighter bomber.

[quote= davparlr I suggest you start reading abit about the Junkers 88, cause then you'll realise just how agile that bird actually was ! And how deadly as-well........[/QUOTE]

There is no doubt that the Ju-88 is agile and deadly. All I am saying is that agility depends on things like roll and pitch rates, control responses, climbing ability (which my sources indicate that the B-25 had a better time to climb than an equivalent Ju-8, etc. Without comparison data on these data points, it is impossible to say one aircraft is significantly more agile than the other.

[quote=Roles of the B-25

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
.......[/QUOTE]

As I mentioned above, the Russians used it as a fighter bomber. Also, after the war it became a successful trainer for many years.

[quote=I know the point has been made earlier but why are we comparing the 1939 Ju88A4 against a 1942 onwards B25........[/QUOTE]

The Ju-88 A4 did not make the front until 1941. The B-25C/D is probably more comparable would have the same statistics. The B-25B which is deffinitely comparable, time wise, was faster than the A4 (300mph to 293).

[quote=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........[/QUOTE]

The B-25C-1-NA could carry 5200lbs with wing racks.

The data does indicate that the B-25 has a better load/range trade-off than the Ju-88. The B-25C max weight minus empty weight was 13,700 lbs, the Ju-88A4 was 7,722 lb. Assuming similar efficiencies (maybe a big assumption), this is a significant difference and would allow more flexibility with the B-25.

[quote=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........[/QUOTE]

I don't think it is a runaway by any means. I think this is right on. As far as why I selected the B-25 over the Ju-88 was because I felt the B-25 an underappreciated workhorse. If I had to fly in WW2 in any of these kinds of aircraft, it would be the Mosquito. I like the speed.

As for the Dolittle discussion. The requirements Dolittle had for his aircraft was to take off in 500ft, fly 2000 miles with a 2000 lb bomb load. I think this would be a big stretch for a Ju-88 A4, but Dolittle would pull it off!

The B-25 (along with other planes) decimated Jappanese shipping and ground installations in the South Pacific. We would probably be astounded by the tonnage Japan lost to the Mitchell. Both name and named have honored the advent of air power.

Both aircraft are superb aircraft which warrents a great discussion. Both served their country well.

[syscom3]

Id give the edge to the -88 for the combat it was designed to fight in. Although I would say those liquid cooled engines were going to be a problem if it would have had to fight in the SW Pacific.

The US had three fine medium bombers in the war and all of them had their advantages and weakness's. I would say the -88 was marginally better than the B25 for 1940-44, the
A26 better than the -88 in 1945. As for the B26 compared to the -88? I dont know yet.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

If it can take off of a carrier, then its a carrier capable aircraft

no, because it has to be able to get back onto the aircraft carrier........

wait a minute, there's an SR-71 on an aircraft carrier, doesn't that make all SR-71s fully carrier capable syscom? quick, someone tell the USAAF and Navy!

come on sys let's not get too carried away, they were stripped of almost everything, they had broom handles for guns! they couldn't land back on the carrier and the aircraft all had to be crashed, the bombs dropped were a token measure not a means of destruction, i hardly think that's the career of a carrier capable aircraft...........

I would not really go as far as saying the B-25 was more advanced.

me neither, on account of the fact the B-25's a later aircraft............

The Ju-88 A4 did not make the front until 1941

she saw service late in the battle of Britain.......

if you were to fly either of these aircraft with loaded bombs over an environment like Britian in 39, you would want to be in a B-25

you'd want to be in an A1, on account of the fact it was the only version of either plane in service at the time, i see your point but it's like saying if i were in WWI i'd rather have a Eurofighter than a spitfire... the time scales are out, the point i'm trying to make is that the -88 was the only one you could choose, as she was an earlier aircraft..........

and RE defensive guns, don't blame the aircraft, each is a reflection of their country's pre-war theories, Jerry thought the -88, when designing it, would be fast enough to outrun fighters = few guns, the yanks thought lots of guns would protect it from fighters, so the B-25 had lots of guns, as it was, as with almost all pre-war theories, they were soon proved wrong as the -88 wasn't fast enough and the B-25 still didn't have enough guns not to get shot down..........

I think this would be a big stretch for a Ju-88 A4

it was a big stretch for the B-25!!

those liquid cooled engines were going to be a problem if it would have had to fight in the SW Pacific

just like it was a problem for the spitfire, just like it was for the hurricane, just like it was for the Tony, just like it was for the P-38, -39, -40, -51 and the mossie, oh, no, wait, it wasn't a problem for them..........

and either way, the -88 wasn't designed for use in the pacific, i for one have every confidence it would have done just fine if she had though...........

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

FLYBOYJ, I think we both know how decieving 'looks' can be

I know, but look at the basis of the layout - a large taildragger aircraft was basically an obsolete concept by 1940, it makes training and operaions harder. Now as far as the airframe, construction and robustness, it is on par or even superior to the B-25.

Cockpits, there's no comparisons - the Ju.88 is just plain archaic for a twin engined aircraft.

Here's Eric Brown's and Roland Beaumont's captured A-5 flighttest report, I bolded areas where I would have concerns

"Test-Flying the Ju 88

During World War II, exhaustive tests were carried out on all airworthy luftwaffe machines falling into British hands. Most major variants of the Ju 88 formed part of this collection, ranging from an A-1 acquired during 1940, and culminating with the G-1 example arriving in July 1944. Each was flown by future test pilots of post-war note who were already entering thils career on either side of VE Day.

Ju 88A-5 Capt Eric 'Winkle' Brown first got his hands on a Ju 88A-5 variant during late 1943, this aircraft having inadvertently landed at Chivenor in 1941. Brown's initial impression upon entering was that a crew of four would make for extremely cramped personal conditions. More noteworthy, given his small stature, was the very generous fore-and-aft seat adjustment. This was a positive factor compared to most Allied military aircraft, where in Brown's view the seat-to-pedal arrangement proved to be almost totally in favour of large pilots! limitation relating to the otherwise sound controls layout involved the engine throttles. These were placed too far back and too low, requiring the pilot to change his hand action from a pull to a push position - not the best of arrangements during what was a critical phase of any flight!

Engine start-up of the Jumo211 G-1 s could be achieved internally using the electrically energized inertia starters, or through use of a starter trolley, the latter sparing the draining of the Ju 88's batteries. Taxiing was easy thanks to quickresponding brakes and an unlocked tail-wheel., it was locked prior to take-off, otherwise operation of the hydraulic system was impeded. In addition the oil and coolant radiators had to be fully opened during this stage of the sortie.

For take-off the flaps were set one-third open, and the radiator gills closed to a similar degree. Rudder and aileron trim-tabs were set at 'zero', and elevator trim-tabs set for a marginal nose-heavy configuration. On opening up power Brown's experience was that differential throttle movements could easily induce a swing if power was applied too rapidly. Also, considerable forward pressure had to be applied to the control column in order to lift the tail up and gain full rudder response in so doing.

Once in flight, both rudder and ailerons proved very responsive throughout the entire range of speed applied to the Ju 88. The automatic tail incidence control was of material assistance when noticeable elevator movements were called for; this system was linked to the dive-brakes in a manner that placed the elevators in the 'dive' mode and returned them to 'level' when the dive-brakes were opened and shut. Two incidental advantages of the system lay in the fact that the pilot could avoid having to ensure the propellers did not over-speed during the dive, and did not have to rely upon muscle power to regain level flight!

A practice 'landing' with flaps and undercarriage lowered established the stalling speed to be just over 145kmph (90mph), the indication coming in the form of a sharp wing-drop. The resultant approach saw Brown put the wheels down at around 225 kmph (140 mph), and moving the flaps to an interim position. Full flap was applied with the speed reduced to 19O kmph (120 mph), and a pronounced nose-up sensation was swiftly countered by the automatic tail-incidence mechanism. Touchdown was at 18O kmph (11O mph), with the throttles having to be instantly retarded as the airfield boundary was crossed. Premature lowering of the tail was not recommended, since rudder 'block-out' could then contribute to any swing that might develop before the aircraft had lost speed. (Brown also commented on the emergency procedure for lowering the undercarriage should the engine-activated hydraulic-pump system go 'out'. This entailed three minutes of feverish hand-pumping that only affected the main wheels, so leading to a very pronounced nose-up touch-down and landing run, not to say a severe damage effect upon the rear fuselage in the process!)

Ju 88G-1 Wg Cdr Roland Beaumont was attached to the Central Fighter Establishment's tactics branch at Tangmere following his return from captivity. On 14 July, having read up his notes on the Ju 88G-1, he climbed up rather apprehensively into the cockpit. His initial impression was of restricted vision thanks to the canopy framing. On the other hand, the controls and instrument layout largely met with his approval excepting the fuel system, which he regarded as complex. Engine start produced a pleasant noise level, but this turned to a harsher note as power was applied. Movement of the controls displayed smooth and immediate response, but Beaumont felt that the nose-up attitude while taxiing made him feel uncomfortable. Once airborne, however, he quickly adapted to handling what was one of his first multi-engine experiences, most of his flying having hitherto been in single-engine fighters.

The take-off had proved surprisingly easy, Power had been gently applied to counteract any tendency to swing, but the machine lifted off before reaching 100 per cent effort, and required no further elevator action other than that previously applied to lift the tail up. Once the undercarriage was raised, the subsequent climb-rate applied was comparable to its RAF contemporary the Mosquito. Control response was very good, while, after levelling out and holding a speed around 370 kmph (230 mph), minimal rudder and elevator trimming was required.

These issues aren't showstoppers, but are based on 1930's technology incorporated into a 1940s + airframe, that's where I feel the B-25 was way more advanced.