Me-210C vs Me-410A

[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]

Originally Posted by davebender

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Vincenzo

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.

Originally Posted by Vincenzo

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Vincenzo]

Originally Posted by Shortround6

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.



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

I wan't argued on US designation, they can design as they want.

Right observation but if "bombardier" planse were shoot down? This is possibiel only in the actual situation with air superiority as the US in late WWII

[Shortround6]

Originally Posted by Vincenzo

Right observation but if "bombardier" planse were shoot down? This is possibiel only in the actual situation with air superiority as the US in late WWII

True but adding just a second or even third "bomb aimer" plane per formation should handle combat losses.
that and the solid nose planes tended to show up later in the war anyway.
I don't believe there were any solid nosed Martin B-26s.

[davebender]

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

A bunch in the Philippines until F.E.A.F. was wiped out.

Colin Kelly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Colin Purdie Kelly, Jr. (July 11, 1915 – December 10, 1941) was a World War II B-17 Flying Fortress pilot who flew bombing runs against the Japanese navy in the first days after the Pearl Harbor attack. He is remembered as a war hero for sacrificing his own life to save his crew when his plane became the first American B-17 to be shot down in combat. Colin Kelly has been called the first American hero of the Second World War.

If Cpt. Kelly had been flying an A-20 ILO a B-17 he would have a better chance to hit the target and evade Japanese fighter aircraft. The same goes for bombing missions conducted in defense of the Dutch East Indies during early 1942, defense of Midway during June 1942 etc.

[Civettone]

All bomber aircraft had a bombardier on board but strangely enough on most missions they all just dropped when the lead plane dropped theirs. That is indeed a strange thing.

I also want to add this to the A-20. Both the Ju 88 and the A-20 were used as tactical bombers. But the A-20 was not used as a strategic bomber like the Ju 88 was. That's true. But this is not because the A-20 wasn't fit to do so. It was because the Americans had other bombers for the job: the B-25, B-24, etc. And that's also why they started to use the A-20 solely as an attack aircraft, the B-25 and B-26 could do the other stuff.
If the Germans had an aircraft like the A-20 it would probably have been used much like the Ju 88...

Kris

[davebender]

Let's try a 1943 comparison. The Ju-188E and A-20G are a pretty close match.

Ju-188E.
Junkers Ju 188 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2 x BMW801G engines. 1,700 hp each.
310mph max speed.
31,967lbs loaded weight.
21,825lbs empty.
--------------------------
10,142lbs total payload.


A20G.
Douglas A-20G Havoc
2 x Wright R-2600 engines. 1,675 hp each.
339mph max speed.
27,200 loaded weight.
17,200 empty.
------------------------
10,000lbs total payload.