A US 'Ju-88'

[merlin]

Would a US JU-88 equivalent also need to have a dive bombing capability?

Don't see why it would, in my original post, I assumed it wouldn't - that was a German obsession - fine for single-engine aircraft, but for anything bigger led to design compromises to the detriment of the aircraft.

The problem is the twin engined bomber does not fit in with the AAC concept of operations for most of the pre war war and early war ( i.e. after 1939 before 42 period). This is for precision high level bombing of ships a torpedo or dive bomber does not really fit into this.

Really, that would imply an Air Force of only B-17 & B-24s! As it was the US Army Air Corp had a history of 'attack' aircraft, which after the A-17 jumped from single engine to twin in the shape of the A-20. it was used successfully by the Russians on the Eastern Front, and the RAAF together with Kenney's 'Flying Buccaneers' in the SW Pacific. It was gradually replaced in by the B-25 - which has a very similar wingspan to the Ju-88!

The Luftwaffe also believed in their slow-firing heavy-caliber machine-cannons for defense. Thus allowing the designers to just go for one cannon per stand and place it on a mount rather than in a turret. Ever since the Martin B.10, the US preferred multiple small-caliber fast-firing machine guns in powered turrets.

Don't agree, some Lw bombers did mount 20mm cannon, but forward firing hardly for defence. It was the French air force that had cannons in dorsal turrets. Lw bombers were equipped with increasing numbers of 7.92mm MGs - however their gunners were well trained , as many RAF fighters found to their cost.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Mitchell sure. Don't know about the Marauder. The Marauder was a bitch of a thing to handle as per its crews.

It also had the lowest combat loss rate of any bomber in the 9th AF.

It was little different that the 8th, 12th, or 15th Air Force, and a low non combat loss rate overseas. The reputation as a widow maker was acquired in early type and squadron training which was a bit dated. Once the instructors understood its characteristics and the training regime reflected the differences the accident rates dropped back to normal levels. The same thing occurred a few years later when the mass training of jet pilots occurred, the training details had to reflect the actual chartiristics & not earlier types.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Really, that would imply an Air Force of only B-17 & B-24s! As it was the US Army Air Corp had a history of 'attack' aircraft, which after the A-17 jumped from single engine to twin in the shape of the A-20. it was used successfully by the Russians on the Eastern Front, and the RAAF together with Kenney's 'Flying Buccaneers' in the SW Pacific. It was gradually replaced in by the B-25 - which has a very similar wingspan to the Ju-88!

Exactly. Which is what all right thinking forward minded officers wanted. Some heretic deviationists got the ear of ill informed congressmen about the time of the Spanish Civil war and ordered some twin engine monstrosities but they were quickly dealt with and order restored.

After that its mainly the French who place the orders the RAF that demands changes to the Boston and then FDR orders massive numbers of aircraft regardless of utility and instead of the 6000 4 engined precision bombers which should have been used against Germany the numbers are paltry and the weather is entirely unexpected and just wrong.


I joke but given its choice the AAC would have done exactly that in pre war planning. The Ju88 is in no way an attack aircraft its a schnellbomber a fast machine that can outrun fighters and even in small numbers deliver precision strikes at strategically important targets. As opposed to the B17 which in formation can defend itself against fighters and deliver precision attacks against strategically important targets.

 

[ennobee]

Don't agree, some Lw bombers did mount 20mm cannon, but forward firing hardly for defence. It was the French air force that had cannons in dorsal turrets. Lw bombers were equipped with increasing numbers of 7.92mm MGs - however their gunners were well trained , as many RAF fighters found to their cost.

I have to find my copy of the book again and look for the exact quote, but as far as I remember Ronald Dahl wrote a chapter in 'Going Solo' about him in a Hawker Hurricane hunting Ju.88's in the Greek Campaign. The way he has a fellow pilot explain to him how to hunt Junkers is that the Ju.88 has only one rear machine gun, but one of a much larger caliber than the British .303 and that every eight' bullet in their gun is a tracer, so that they basically aim it like a water hose. Therefore the pilot warned him never to engage a formation of Junkers flying abreast. If you watch -or listen- for it in movies like 'Battle of Britain' you can clearly hear the German bombers' front and rear guns go 'Bok-bok-bok-bok-bok', while the Spitfire's guns go 'takkatakkatakkatakkata'.

So yes, the Germans preferred heavier slower guns and only one of them per station. This compared to the American preference for powered turrets with at least two guns. Any Ju.88 lookalike designed for the USAAF would have trouble convincing the general staff that one gun would be enough.

 

[merlin]

@ennobee interesting, and that it related to the Greek campaign, so I read up:
- initially defensive armament comprised three and later four 7.9 mm MG 15 MGs.
- with lessons learned from the Battle of Britain, for the Ju-88A-4-dimension were changed - span increased, and defensive armament was substantially increased - a 7.9mm MG 81 firing forward, two MG 81sor one 13mm MG 131firing aft agove the fuselage and one MG 81 firing aft from the ventral condola.

 

[tomo pauk]

I have to find my copy of the book again and look for the exact quote, but as far as I remember Ronald Dahl wrote a chapter in 'Going Solo' about him in a Hawker Hurricane hunting Ju.88's in the Greek Campaign. The way he has a fellow pilot explain to him how to hunt Junkers is that the Ju.88 has only one rear machine gun, but one of a much larger caliber than the British .303 and that every eight' bullet in their gun is a tracer, so that they basically aim it like a water hose. Therefore the pilot warned him never to engage a formation of Junkers flying abreast. If you watch -or listen- for it in movies like 'Battle of Britain' you can clearly hear the German bombers' front and rear guns go 'Bok-bok-bok-bok-bok', while the Spitfire's guns go 'takkatakkatakkatakkata'.

I'm not sure why it is necessary to go with secondary, let alone with tertiary sources when primary sources are easily available.

The only German trainable defensive cannon installation was in the nose and in the 'bathtub' position of some of He 111s, during the 1st years of the war. In the same time, all other trainable defensive guns were the MG 15s. In many instances, the MG15s was all they've gotten.
Later (from 1941 on) LW switched to the MG81 and MG81Z, and still later they introduced the MG131s. The later replaced the nose cannon on the He 111s, for example.

So yes, the Germans preferred heavier slower guns and only one of them per station. This compared to the American preference for powered turrets with at least two guns. Any Ju.88 lookalike designed for the USAAF would have trouble convincing the general staff that one gun would be enough.

The main defensive gun - MG15 - was firing at 1000+ rd/min.

Americans were installing single guns on the B-17s, B-25s, B-26s,DB-7s, A-20s and Martin M-167s by 1940. Yes, there was no B-26 in service until early 1941, same for the B-25, and it took another half a year for them to gain the powered turrets.
It took until 1943 for the A-20 to acquire a powered turret. The 1st B-17s with powered turrets- the B-17E - were in service from November 1941, ie. 26 months after the ww2 started.

 

[RedSword12]

and as a precision weapon, well you have the norden bomb sight which does pickle barrel stuff from much higher.

The Norden sight was pretty mediocre in its actual performance. Most of the bark about its effectiveness comes from the company's own propaganda, which it successfully used to prevent the adoption of a rival sight that arguably had better performance. At the end of the day, if you were not dive-bombing, accurate strikes were only possible if the skies were utterly uncontested and you didn't have to worry about flak. It's telling that the Norden only really started to deliver after the war in the air had been won. The pickle barrel stuff was always mere bluster. Even with modern guided munitions, such accuracy is highly unusual for air strikes.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

The Norden sight was pretty mediocre in its actual performance. Most of the bark about its effectiveness comes from the company's own propaganda, which it successfully used to prevent the adoption of a rival sight that arguably had better performance. At the end of the day, if you were not dive-bombing, accurate strikes were only possible if the skies were utterly uncontested and you didn't have to worry about flak. It's telling that the Norden only really started to deliver after the war in the air had been won. The pickle barrel stuff was always mere bluster. Even with modern guided munitions, such accuracy is highly unusual for air strikes.

Well yes. Though the Norden never delivers at all, several hundred bombers in a box dropping on the lead bombadier is not accuracy.

But this is about pre war procurement and the AAC belief was it was accurate or at least accurate enough to deliver Precision Aerial Bombardment with enough airframes, 6-7000 should do it, and bring Germany to its knees, according to the air staff in Washington.

If you want a twin engine bomber the US has better if you want a dive bomber they have better. And in the end ( say late 41) the allied mix of FGA, twin engined level bombers and heavy twin engined fighters is superior in all respects.