Ju 87 for RHS-EOS?

[Dili]

Well you just prove once again how today confort is valued over truth.

[el cid again]

Actually, Axis thinking in the 1930s (in both Germany and Japan) was that 50 kg bombs were normal. This was not really different from thinking either: many US and British designed bombers specified 250 pound bombs - which are in the same league as 220 pound bombs. [Wether France is considered Allied, Axis or neutral, it also went with 50 kg bombs or 250 pound bombs, depending on if the design was domestic or US] I have no more problem believing in a Schnellbomer with inernal bomb bays fitted for 50 kg bombs than I do for the Ki-48 - designed in the same period - or a Hudson - Boston - name it Allied bomber fitted for 250s.

The Germans were quite clever with the rack system - sort of a modular weapon mounting which - when combined with a high stressed hard point - meant that very heavy weapons - including guided missiles, torpedoes or 3968 pound bombs could be mounted (on various aircraft). Note however these mountings themselves had weight: a Do-217 with a 3968 pound bomb can carry NO OTHER bombs - although its bomb load is nominally twice that - apparently because of the weight of the mount. [Since it must go on one wing or the other, in theory you should be able to do that on both sides - and for a lighter weapon - you can.] Nevertheless - I found data indicating that the Ju-88 changed its structure during the course of development - and that early A models could not mount what later A models could. It is also possible (or likely) that practice changed - during the war - just as it did in many air forces. What was not done in 1939 might be SOP by 1942 - by which point air forces generally were going for heavier bomb loads - and earlier theories about what would be "effective" or even "decisive" were recognized as hopelessly optimistic. We lack the time to give microscopic attention to every one of our 248 different plane types - a practice we have too often indulged. The standard is "if it is in one of the references that lists aircraft of all nations, we use that data" - "if we can find similar data in one or two other general references we consider it confirmed and stop research" - "if we must use a national reference, we use a standard one listing many aircraft in preference to a specific one devoted to a particular type" - etc. These standards - which pre date my time working on mods - defined for CHS - are sound ones: not only are they time efficient, they tend to give us relatively correct values. Ideally we would like one basic reference for all aircraft - so the standards for data are the same. That is why Weal and Gunston are so good: they list almost every plane for every nation. [Curiously both references have exactly the same title: Combat Aircraft of World War Two] But they don't list every plane, nor do they give us all the data for every plane they do list - so we need more sources. But it is neither practical nor good practice to run down esoteric documents when we do not have to do so: diverse materials will not use common defnitions - or even language - and it is very hard to get a uniform data set from them. Further - we need the NORMAL case much more than some exceptional case - for valid simulation comes from running our planes on typical missions - again rather than exceptional ones. Here I must say Matrix decision to focus on the normal bomb load sounds better than I usually feel like: max loads are not often used (and come with a severe range penalty).

It does appear the Ju-88 - when running heavy - put ALL its load external - and carried fuel internally to help compensate for the drag of the added external weapons as well as the added weight. It was also clever to have "plumbed" the bomb bays to permit this. It is something similar to using "drop tanks" on fighters, only these are "undroppable tanks" if you catch my meaning. But it is a good idea to permit operational flexability. What you don't get is great range with a great load.

Something we must worry about in a game - players pay only in electrons - not in lost aircraft or lives or missions -
is running in overload all the time. Aircraft can lift MORE than their maximum load ratings. Yet when they do so, they may well not be able to use that Level 3 airfield any more, nor can they do so without increased stresses that will result in greater attrition (something we cannot simulate in the game). Give wargames something - they will use it - up to the hilt - never mind it is bad practice to do so except rarely when the potential gain is worth the added risks. A Ju-87A1 might be able to lift 4 or even 4.5 metric tons - and attempting to set a weight record might actually do so - but that is not an operational or proper game value to assign. ALL planes can do something like that - and whatever standard we adopt should treat all the same way. The idea of normal loads being our normal case probably is very sound and better simulation than having a B-29 carry 20,000 pounds, which it could do but usually didn't for sound operational reasons.

Nevertheless, evidence is evidence. But it cannot be understood out of context: where AND WHEN are these documents from? A 1944 loadout table is not going to tell us much about 1940 loadouts - probably.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

although I don't do the new spellings

No matter who is upset, we build credibility for the data set and our methods by insisting on this even handed approach.

Well thank you, for the lack of factual arguments what you resort is to justifying  abismal errors to a one source "advantage".

I have submitted far more facts than I should have - wasting far too much time. A cite from a reference is a fact, wether or not you like it. It is SOP for a common aircraft to be listed in diverse ways in various places. And most of the time NONE of the sources are "wrong" either. Which means this is close to arguing about "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin." If we are EVER to complete a plane data set, we need rules that get us data which are indeed consistent and also timely. That is a fact of life. A modder/designer/simulator must be a master of COMPROMISE - not a nit picker - and I have to work to remember that - since I love the details too much. If you don't like being fair, even handed, timely, and accurate all at once - there is no hope I can please you. [I was warned "you cannot please everyone" - but I still try] It appears you just don't like the facts I have submitted: so your standard is "if Dili does not like it, it isn't a fact" I guess. For me there is no emotional need attached to data - I shamelessly correct errors all the time. The only question is - what is "correct" ??? When sources differ, but the standard sources agree, we go with the standard - which is what standard means. Lacking the ability to obtain great masses of user documents on many types in the game, it is bad practice to favor certain planes where we can get them - even if we had the time - which we don't. This project freezes tomorrow- and this evaluation ends with what is said today - period. You got something helpful to say - say it. Insults won't win your case. You are on an RHS thread - so here we use the standards Joe set when he supervised me doing aircraft for CHS (because they are good standards and I never changed them): like it or lump it. You want to advocate - advocate positively rather than negatively.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Your claim to "even handed" is not factual. You imply it is just because it came from same person. That not establish "even handed".
Plus when "even handed" source have crucial errors,  lacks important details like loadouts you seem to be happy with that. For someone that claims Real Historical Scenario tag that is a paradox.
The fact that you seek the first confortable position and sit there is understandable for the shear size of your work but it is erronous.
If the requests of Luftwaffe for speedbomber would have freezed in mid 1935 you were right. But they didnt. They put dive breaks, they got more engine power, the plane was better than they expected and the military requests changed in part to post Spanish Civil War studies and well resources and comon sense having  bombers with only 50kg bombs as normal load doesnt make sense from any point of view. The fact that Ju-88 had only 50kg or less sized bombs in internal bomb bay(no 100kg 250kg or 500kg sized) didnt triggered a warning sign to you is strange. Do you think Ju 88 the most important German bomber attacked most targets with 50kg bombs?

I do not claim to be "even handed" - I am even handed. If you don't believe it - you are filling in the blanks with assumptions - not with facts. I add, subtract and modify things of all sorts for both sides - based entirely on my understanding - which is not static - but dynamic - changing over time - as I am edified by reading and members of the Forum or consultation with professionals. Just because you don't agree with me on this or that does not mean I am not a trained, scientific thinker who is even handed on principle: I am wether or not you care to recognize it.

The Real Historical name was coined for a number of reasons - partly in imitatio nof CHS - partly in imitation of RSH (Real Sub Hunter) - partly because it was better than my own longer proposal. Three letters was the right length, and the particular combination is useful shorthand. Asked to change it by Andrew - by the time I agreed he changed his mind and asked it be kept - so it was. The use of "historical" is partly an honorific - of CHS - and a way to show lineage and respect. The use of "real" was also partly to imply we don't have to refuse to change things we know are wrong because some "plank holder" objects - that is not part of our process. We hope we can do better than CHS by having a larger team - an open one ANYONE can join - even critics - THEIR choice. We hope that being open minded and allowing things to be modified - even after that section is "completed" - aids in getting a more historical product. But ultimately there are limits. For me these include matters of respect. [Oddly - I who am always respectful sometimes am considered not to be - but at least I don't try not to be] But critically they include practical matters. I really don't believe William Greene and Bill Gunston or Weal and his co authors are "factually wrong" - even if you do. I admit their references - for sound economic reasons - do not include all data - (the books would not be published if they had everything - or affordable) - and I regret that is the case. But after decades of work with aviation, including working as a resident engineer at Boeing,
I can "fill in the blanks" - estimating the absent data with some precision. I understand what the significance of weights and performance data means - and I don't find the absent data that troubling: I have been able to build a spreadsheet that IS complete. When I come across a particular case where I now have the absent field - I find my estimates were very good most of the time. I have seen nothing to change my entries that a Ju-88A has a normal bomb load of 500 kg or a max load of 1500 kg either. The probability is this is a far better set of values to use for the typical missions of early Ju-88s than using 3000 kg would be. And since the game does NOT use max load - what difference does it make? The internal bomb bay is still limited to 500 kg.

I think you are having trouble with basic data principles. It really is normal to get a spread of data if you dig deep enough - and almost always ALL the sources are honest and correct in some sense or other. The Ju-88A evolved over years of time - at a time that aircraft evolution was very great per year - and I have no doubt whatever that some variant or other really uses whatever data you can find. That does not mean we should assume an EARLY variant used data likely associated with a LATER one. For example, we know that a Ju-88A could carry a torpedo - but it could not do that before the torpedo was developed and adapted - and you indicated that occurred in 1942 - so it does not apply to the variant we are looking at here.

Where we might compromise is if you can argue that the Ju-88 is an exception for some reason - that it so often used external loads we might want to pretend that "normal load" is greater than internal load - and reduce normal range so it is the range with that load. Since it appears that in many configurations NO bombs were carried internally at all (if external ones were carried) - we might then say "half of external load = normal load" and also we might assume "internal drop tanks" as part of our range estimate for that special normal case. This is not wholly unlike a Betty or Nell which in some sense have no maximum load at all - or where normal load = maximum load.

One anomoly I see in your (and other) data is a max load for some variants of 2.4 metric tons - yet if internal load was 0.5 tons - and there can be 2 1000 kg external (or 4 500 kg) external bombs - why is it not 2.5 metric tons - ever - in any listing? Seems odd - but not too important. IF we were to think of using ONLY the external load - half of 2 tons would be 1 ton - still not any better than a Ki-49 or Ki-21 - so why would we want it?

Why would we NOT want a Do-217 or an HE-111 in preference to a Ju-88? There the normal load is 8 x 250 kg bombs - and that is not maximum either.

[Buck Beach]

You sure picked a great forum for "truth, justice and the American way" No great social cause here Don Quixote just people trying to have fun. Again build your own mod and be happy.

[el cid again]

To do justice I will give some range data for He-111 - which appears better than even Do-217 with the same load. That load is 8 x 250 kg bombs - all internally. However, a common alternate is interesting - 1 x 2000 kg bomb externally and 1 x 500 kg bomb internally - which is even more weight. We don't have a 2000 kg bomb - and I am not sure we want one - but we do have a 4000 pound bomb in the same class. [For city bombing and troop bombing you are MUCH better off with more smaller bombs - but for attacking a battleship in port - big bombs may be a better deal - as in what happened to USS Arizona when hit by a 16 inch shell pretending to be an 800 kg bomb] We also could carry a torpedo - the Japanese torpedo weighs 800 kg - and indeed there WAS a torpedo variant of the He-111 BEFORE the war began.

The H model has a range of 22 hexes in RHS terms = extended range of 7 and normal range of 5. Hmmm - not so good.

Neither is Do-217 - I used km data vice miles data and failed to convert. It has a range of 19 hexes = extended range of 6 and normal range of 4 - also not so good.

We may be better off with the Ki-68 (G5N3) - with 16 x 250 kg bombs = 41 hex range for extended range of 13 and normal range of 10.

The Ju-88A4 with an internal tank had an RHS range = 30 hexes for extended range of 10 and normal range of 7 - not too bad but nothing like the load of the G5N. That range is typical of Axis bombers of the period - with a small internal load of 500 kg. [For an Axis like Allied bomber, see the Hudson] However, the Ju-88 could carry a more impressive external load - 4 x 500 kg bombs = 2 metric tons - and more often really carried 4 x 250 kg bombs = 1 metric ton - in both cases adding fuel tanks internally if required. We COULD define the Ju-88A4 with a 2 ton normal load (= 1 ton extended load) - and because of the internal fuel (apparently) the range of 8 hexes with normal load = 32 hex transfer range - not bad at all. Even so - this aircraft carries HALF the load of a G5N to LESS range - not worth adding IMHO.

BUT there is this: A Ju-88 is a DIVE BOMBER. A Ki-48 II is a DIVE BOMBER. But the Ki-48 II carries only 800 kg of bombs (8 x 100 kg). Curiously it has the SAME transfer range as our reworked Ju-88 does = 32 hexes - so it has the same normal and extended ranges. But the Ju-88 is probably better in terms of durability and defensive armament (some anyway). So it MIGHT be worth adding the Ju-88 vice the Ki-48 II as a DIVE BOMBER option. This could also enter service pretty fast - in 1942 in EOS and maybe start the war in EEO.

[el cid again]

US Intel assigned code name Janice to Ju-88A5 - which was believed to be in JAAF service.

The code name Mike - associated with Bf-109 - was also really assigned by US intel. These aircraft were actually sighted flying in Japan by diplomats - but were only under test.

Trixy was the Ju-52 code name for a JAAF version that did not exist.

Trudy was the FW-200 code name for a JNAF version not in service (but which was indeed developed for JNAF).

Irene was the Ju-87A code named for a JAAF version that did not exist.

Fred was a FW-190 code name for a JAAF version that did not exist.

Doc was a Bf-110 code name for a JNAF version that did not exist.

There was also a German trainer which entered service midwar. A number of Ju-86 served MKKK - a civil airline - as did a number of smaller transports - and a couple of really exotic long range ones. And the Ki-20 was actually a German heavy bomber built ONLY for Japan - long before WWII!

I think that there is some historical flavor in having German aircraft in service - particularly in a Japan enhanced scenario. As these code names imply, the Allies BELIEVED they faced German aircraft. And in some cases - e.g. the Me-109, the FW-200 and the He-100 - they nearly did.

Tony was assigned to Ki-51 partly on the suspicion it might be of Italian origin - the Japanese not being known to have inline engines. In fact, the engine was of German origin - the same one used by the Bf-109 and He-100.

[Dili]

Actually, Axis thinking in the 1930s (in both Germany and Japan) was that 50 kg bombs were normal. This was not really different from thinking either: many US and British designed bombers specified 250 pound bombs - which are in the same league as 220 pound bombs.

 
My point was that to make it inflexible and only 50kg or less was not usual nor comon and a motive of warning for someone reading it. It was also less than the "normal" 100kg(British and Italian) and 250kg(German) bombs.
 

max loads are not often used (and come with a severe range penalty).

 
That wasnt my point. My point was your "fact" that a Ju-88 could not take a 1000kg bomb or could only take 2x500kg and could only take 1500kg maximum.
Also the fact that apparently it is okay for a He111 go for maximum warload weight and not Ju-88.
I dont defend maximum loadout for a typical bomber in this kind of scenarios(it would have been diferent for a close support plane). A 2000 normal vs 1000kg extended would be good.
 

designed in the same period - or a Hudson - Boston - name it Allied bomber fitted for 250s.

 
Bristol Blenheim(2x500lb or 4x250lb; comon bomb load at war start was 2x250lb+20x40lb incendiaries)  ;Wellington(9x500lb or 9x250lb for long ranges) ,Withley (Against Germany in Blitz time retaliatory bombing typical bomb load 2x500lb+6x250lb ). All had 500lb bomb capability from begining.
 
 

It was also clever to have "plumbed" the bomb bays to permit this. It is something similar to using "drop tanks" on fighters, only these are "undroppable tanks" if you catch my meaning. But it is a good idea to permit operational flexability. What you don't get is great range with a great load.

 
I must point out that was a not uncomon occurence, many WW2 bombers have the capability to have fuel cells in bomb bay, tough not moving the offensive load to external that was mainly linked to the diving bombing possible with Ju-88 and also the tiny size of bomb bay. Note that Ju-88 still had the capability of 2x900 lit external tanks.
 

Do-217 with a 3968 pound bomb can carry NO OTHER bombs - although its bomb load is nominally twice that - apparently because of the weight of the mount.

 
Usually loadouts lists do not list assymetrical weight and i think they weight enough to not make it possible a double load. Same happens with Ju-88 it can only take one 1800kg bomb.
 

where AND WHEN are these documents from? A 1944 loadout table is not going to tell us much about 1940 loadouts

 
I dont know but the Rustzustands were from begining of Ju-88 A projects, the A1 already had the bomb racks and the fuel configurations. I presented in page 2 an image with range with a 2400 kg bomb load for A1 variant in 1939. There is a photo of a 1000kg bomb being loaded in a Ju-88 in 1941 in Squadron-Signal Action 085 booklet for or in Greece attack.
 

Ju-88A5

 
Note that Ju-88 A5 appears earlier then A4. When A4 with new engines got later in being fielded it was decided to make an interim version with some improvements that were for A4.
 

For example, we know that a Ju-88A could carry a torpedo - but it could not do that before the torpedo was developed and adapted - and you indicated that occurred in 1942 - so it does not apply to the variant we are looking at here.

 
The torpedo was developed and in use in 41 in He111 and He 115 floatplane. It was not just a priority for Germans in their war, adding that the it had too much failure rate. When in Mediterranean they got italian Torpedo and started to include it in Ju-88 also German variants since He-111 was getting obsolete by 1942.
 

I have seen nothing to change my entries that a Ju-88A has a normal bomb load of 500 kg or a max load of 1500 kg either. The probability is this is a far better set of values to use for the typical missions of early Ju-88s than using 3000 kg would be.

 
Oh sure but He111, Do 217 can? Can you explain that reasoning?
You are fast talking about maxloads of Do 217, He 111 but for Ju 88 it stays at 1500kg. The only explanation is that you were induced in error by Bill Guston & Co.
All He111,Do217,Ju 88 had similar all up weights with 13-16t. Being the He 111 with a less powerfull engine. So unless some engineering miracle their loads cannot be much diferent unless a drastic cut in range.
 
Like i said above the typical mission could be 4x500kg and the extended range 4x250kg or 2x500kg.
Normal bomb load of 50kg bombs doesnt make sense.
 

Why would we NOT want a Do-217 or an HE-111 in preference to a Ju-88? There the normal load is 8 x 250 kg bombs - and that is not maximum either.

 
Do 217 was a problematic airplane and a later plane, only in 42-43 reached some use. He 111 was getting obsolete(see it's speed) and didnt had radial engines - this is an assumption but i doubt japanese would want a bomber like that unless they were in experimentation mode. Ju-88 was the "normal"  widespread German bomber had comon for German engines like He 111. The Ju 88 dive capability would also be usefull for Japanese . That's the reasons i see against the others.
 

I think you are having trouble with basic data principles. It really is normal to get a spread of data if you dig deep enough - and almost always ALL the sources are honest and correct in some sense or other. The Ju-88A evolved over years of time - at a time that aircraft evolution was very great per year - and I have no doubt whatever that some variant or other really uses whatever data you can find. That does not mean we should assume an EARLY variant used data likely associated with a LATER one. For example, we know that a Ju-88A could carry a torpedo - but it could not do that before the torpedo was developed and adapted - and you indicated that occurred in 1942 - so it does not apply to the variant we are looking at here.

 
 
What amazing take. You stated the fastbomber only take. you stated loadouts appropriate fro prototypes Even for A1 1939 had outside stores and i stated that it was obsolete concept by war start: 1939. And it is me that are making confusions?
 

Where we might compromise is if you can argue that the Ju-88 is an exception for some reason - that it so often used external loads we might want to pretend that "normal load" is greater than internal load - and reduce normal range so it is the range with that load.

 
That shows our diferences i am not so normative it has not such significance to me the Int-Ext relation . Ju 88 is not an exception because all German bomber had external payloads including He111 and Do-217 albeit they were not restricted to the puny 50kg bomb internal. Ju-88 was an exception because it was also a dive bomber for that it has to have external bomb loads.
 

so the standards for data are the same. That is why Weal and Gunston are so good: they list almost every plane for every nation. [Curiously both references have exactly the same title: Combat Aircraft of World War Two] But they don't list every plane, nor do they give us all the data for every plane they do list - so we need more sources.

 
"So we need more source" that is my point but that is an inversion from your part i must remember you that you wanted to close the data  saying that Bill Guston & Co were supreme. An encyclopedia is not enough if you resorted to it even if the data was right. I am sure you would have put a 100 or 250kg internal bomb since the 500kg internal (well the max internal bomb load was 1400kg)limit fits it. But a Ju-88 cant take 100 or 250kg bombs internal. Also a random look to many places that have Ju-88 information would have shown mostly correct information concerning loadouts.
 

One anomoly I see in your (and other) data is a max load for some variants of 2.4 metric tons - yet if internal load was 0.5 tons - and there can be 2 1000 kg external (or 4 500 kg) external bombs - why is it not 2.5 metric tons - ever - in any listing? Seems odd - but not too important. IF we were to think of using ONLY the external load - half of 2 tons would be 1 ton - still not any better than a Ki-49 or Ki-21 - so why would we want it?

 
Max internal was 1400kg(28x50kg) with 1 ton(4x250kg or 2x500kg) outside makes 2,4t. You can see in A configuration Column 11 : 28x50kg Und(and) 2x500kg. As side note you can see that 6 racks of 250kg were possible (being 2 outside engine nacelles) something that i have forgot to point.
 
 

But it is neither practical nor good practice to run down esoteric documents when we do not have to do so 

 
I really hope that the source of Bill Guston & Co were "esoteric" documents. Strange that a simple data stating the weights and loadouts is now "esoteric" nor they have any clear bias . US Navy have "esoteric" documents of it's planes online i also hope you have used them they are here: http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org4-8.htm
 
It will be interesting to know how Ki-48 works as a Dive bomber.
 
 
 

The Ju-88A4 with an internal tank had an RHS range = 30 hexes for extended range of 10 and normal range of 7

 
Ju-88 A1 with 500kg bomb load had 3680km with 3263 kg of Fuel
 
Ju 88 A4 with 500kg bomb load had ?km with 4120kg(like can be seen in config B column 13) of fuel. Even with more power 1400hp instead 1200hp and the eventual increase consumption i would say put it with a range nearer 4000km.
 
 

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Actually, Axis thinking in the 1930s (in both Germany and Japan) was that 50 kg bombs were normal. This was not really different from thinking either: many US and British designed bombers specified 250 pound bombs - which are in the same league as 220 pound bombs.

My point was that to make it inflexible and only 50kg or less was not usual nor comon and a motive of warning for someone reading it. It was also less than the "normal" 100kg(British and Italian) and 250kg(German) bombs.

I think this was originally intended to be the standard bombload - in the mid 1930s. I also think it is MORE EFFECTIVE than larger bombs in RHS - where we use a realistic bomb rating system - IF the target is unarmored. That is, two 50 kg bombs do more damage than one 100 kg bomb does (which was the original - and incorrect - WITP system). We didn't change the code - but we changed the data so the code has no choice but to do it our way.

Another thing to remember is that in RHS we give players multiple loadouts for the same plane - and they can always switch to the default loadout for a unit that has a different one. At the moment, however, I think we should arm the Ju-88 with 250 kg bombs - on a slightly erronious basis: give it 8 as "normal" yielding 4 as "extended" where IRL it would still be 4 bombs at normal - but they would be 500 kg vice 8 250s. I think this should have a range of 32 hexes = 10 extended and 8 normal - as stated above.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

max loads are not often used (and come with a severe range penalty).

That wasnt my point. My point was your "fact" that a Ju-88 could not take a 1000kg bomb or could only take 2x500kg and could only take 1500kg maximum.
Also the fact that apparently it is okay for a He111 go for maximum warload weight and not Ju-88.
I dont defend maximum loadout for a typical bomber in this kind of scenarios(it would have been diferent for a close support plane). A 2000 normal vs 1000kg extended would be good.

Well - it is clear that EVENTUALLY Ju-88s operated with 1000 kg bombs - and also torpedoes in that weight class. Further - it appears that some thought was given to both plumbing and structure early in the design of the aircraft - so it might have been theoretically possible - or it might have actually been practice early on - if you are willing to believe the authorities we use are all wrong (which I am not). But the standard remains the same for the He - 111: it would not be able to lift its maximum bombload. It is a different sort of aircraft however, and it seems to have not been designed for most of its load to be external: that may account for why a Ju-88 could be a dive bomber. At no point did I say or mean that we should apply a different standard.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

It was also clever to have "plumbed" the bomb bays to permit this. It is something similar to using "drop tanks" on fighters, only these are "undroppable tanks" if you catch my meaning. But it is a good idea to permit operational flexability. What you don't get is great range with a great load.

I must point out that was a not uncomon occurence, many WW2 bombers have the capability to have fuel cells in bomb bay, tough not moving the offensive load to external that was mainly linked to the diving bombing possible with Ju-88 and also the tiny size of bomb bay. Note that Ju-88 still had the capability of 2x900 lit external tanks.

I agree that the reason for so much external load is to permit dive bombing. If it could carry external tanks as well as internal ones, that also accounts for its remarkable range performance with such drag - at least to some degree.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Do-217 with a 3968 pound bomb can carry NO OTHER bombs - although its bomb load is nominally twice that - apparently because of the weight of the mount.

Usually loadouts lists do not list assymetrical weight and i think they weight enough to not make it possible a double load. Same happens with Ju-88 it can only take one 1800kg bomb.

where AND WHEN are these documents from? A 1944 loadout table is not going to tell us much about 1940 loadouts

I dont know but the Rustzustands were from begining of Ju-88 A projects, the A1 already had the bomb racks and the fuel configurations. I presented in page 2 an image with range with a 2400 kg bomb load for A1 variant in 1939. There is a photo of a 1000kg bomb being loaded in a Ju-88 in 1941 in Squadron-Signal Action 085 booklet for or in Greece attack.

Ju-88A5

Note that Ju-88 A5 appears earlier then A4. When A4 with new engines got later in being fielded it was decided to make an interim version with some improvements that were for A4.

Bad Allied intel attributed the A5 to Japan. Most of this bad intel had a foundation: Japan either paid for the development of the aircraft (FW-200), bought licences (Me-109 or Ju-87), or it was actively negotiating for one. So possibly the plane we should consider is the A5 - which indeed seems to pre date the A4 - wierd but true. Similarly - A9 and A10 are earlier than A8 - go figure.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I have seen nothing to change my entries that a Ju-88A has a normal bomb load of 500 kg or a max load of 1500 kg either. The probability is this is a far better set of values to use for the typical missions of early Ju-88s than using 3000 kg would be.

Oh sure but He111, Do 217 can? Can you explain that reasoning?
You are fast talking about maxloads of Do 217, He 111 but for Ju 88 it stays at 1500kg. The only explanation is that you were induced in error by Bill Guston & Co.
All He111,Do217,Ju 88 had similar all up weights with 13-16t. Being the He 111 with a less powerfull engine. So unless some engineering miracle their loads cannot be much diferent unless a drastic cut in range.

Like i said above the typical mission could be 4x500kg and the extended range 4x250kg or 2x500kg.
Normal bomb load of 50kg bombs doesnt make sense.

I am not reasoning here - just reading. Planes can carry what they can carry - what the data in references say they can carry. A Ju-87A is a long lived series of bombers - produced in many variants and sub variants. Don't be so upset about variations among and between these - it is likely ALL the data we discuss is true and honest and NONE of it is in error.

There are two "engineering miracles" related to the He-111 - the wing area and the design for an internal bomb load. Internal load reduce the drag of the load by hundreds of % - while a large wing area and a lower cruising speed make for far greater efficiency in terms of moving a given payload over distance. As speed goes up - drag goes up by a greater than linear function; as external loads are put on - in this case 4 of them - drag goes up drastically.

In any case I am willing to rate a Ju-88 for 4 x 250 kg bombs - but that is not any advantage over a Japanese bomber with 1000 kg bomb load - except we can define a Ju-88 as a dive bomber - which has both advantages (in bomb accuracy) and disadvantages (far more attrition due to the way AAA works ).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

[
It will be interesting to know how Ki-48 works as a Dive bomber.

This is not very hard to do: it is in all but the briefest articles on the Ki-48. The I model was a horizontal bomber made in imitation of the SB-2 - which impressed the Japanese at Nomanhan. The II model doubled the bombload and involved extensive modification to become a dive bomber - which technology was then used on a variety of later two engine fighter bomber projects. See in particular our standard for Japanese aircraft, Rene Francillon's Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War. The Ki-48 II is also armored - which the I model is not. It is a much better plane than the I - but not in my view quite as good as a Ju-88. Oddly - given the data I have found - they have a similar range.

But does anyone want it????

[Dili]

The 900 lit tanks could only be used without any external weapons. Theoretically there could be 2x250kg in not usually used external racks but that would bust the max weight if we assume of course that internal bomb bay is full.
 
Ki-48 is not in same ballpark as Ju-88 it is a tinier plane. How Ki-48 launched it's weapons in a dive? We lack much info about it.
 

But the standard remains the same for the He - 111: it would not be able to lift its maximum bombload.

 
What do you mean by this? if it cant lift how it is maximum? All loads are inside 13760kg
 

Don't be so upset about variations among and between these

 
?! Ju-88 can take 3t a little bit less than Do-217 and He111.
 

In any case I am willing to rate a Ju-88 for 4 x 250 kg bombs - but that is not any advantage over a Japanese bomber with 1000 kg bomb load

 
Ju-88 can take 2t for normal range and 1t for extended. That put it's better than a comon Japanese bomber. It is curious that in config C(bomb bay all with gas - albeit the 680kg tank is not topped it is only with 150kg) it could take 2x1000kg bombs but is not listed for 4x500kg bombs which migh mean the 4 racks were more weight than the 2 for 1t bomb or the nominal 500kg bombs were not really 500kg but 500 plus something.  So if we talk about 4x500kg bombs and config B that gives us 2120kg of Fuel and 2t bombs; An A1 model had 2340km range with 2100kg of fuel and 1.5 t bomb load. So i would say conservatively that more than 2000km would be the range of A4 with 2t bomb load of 4x500kg bombs.
 
Btw i have forgot to post the sources: The page 2 range/bomb/loads i finally discovered it came from Squadron Signal 085 Ju-88 Part1 and the 3 bomb loads configs came from http://www.ju88.equitatura.de/rustsatze_e.htm. Root: http://www.ju88.equitatura.de/Index2.htm.

[Historiker]

I'm sorry I haven't read everything, but as I was busy the last days it's really much and my english could be really better to improve my reading speed...


Well, what's the discussion, now?
The change the Ki-48 II to Ju-88 as Dive Bomber? As the Ju should be better, I would like this change.
To add He 111 and/or Do 217 to improve the IJAAF bomber capacities? As far as I know, both of them should be better than most of the Japanese equipment - so please add it as well!
How is the bombload of Bombers defined, that can load Torpedoes? Is it always exchanged by a 800kg bomb or is it in some connection to the maximum load? If the second, it would be nice to give the added bomber the ability to carry Torpedoes, as well!

Is the Fw-190 already out of discussion (sorry for not reading all)?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

The 900 lit tanks could only be used without any external weapons. Theoretically there could be 2x250kg in not usually used external racks but that would bust the max weight if we assume of course that internal bomb bay is full.

Ki-48 is not in same ballpark as Ju-88 it is a tinier plane. How Ki-48 launched it's weapons in a dive? We lack much info about it.

REPLY: There is quite a bit of information about it. What do you want to know?

But the standard remains the same for the He - 111: it would not be able to lift its maximum bombload.

What do you mean by this? if it cant lift how it is maximum? All loads are inside 13760kg


REPLY: 8 x 250 kg = 2,000 kg. 2000 kg < 13760 kg. What is the problem?

Don't be so upset about variations among and between these

?! Ju-88 can take 3t a little bit less than Do-217 and He111.

REPLY: Apparently not. I see no case where it carries more than 2.4 tons - and am sure that is an increase from the early versions. More than that, there are limits I don't really understand: why it can carry a very heavy assemetric load but not an overload with a complimentary weapon? But for some reason it appears this was the case - and only if it was not might it go to 3 tons. It does appear there were many variations of loadouts - and that one has to consider fuel as well as bombs in many instances (because of the possibility of external and/or internal tanks - apparently two of each). I think that a lot of confusion arises because of the sheer number of possibilities - which increase over time - eventually including torpedoes and probably missiles.

In any case I am willing to rate a Ju-88 for 4 x 250 kg bombs - but that is not any advantage over a Japanese bomber with 1000 kg bomb load

Ju-88 can take 2t for normal range and 1t for extended. That put it's better than a comon Japanese bomber. It is curious that in config C(bomb bay all with gas - albeit the 680kg tank is not topped it is only with 150kg) it could take 2x1000kg bombs but is not listed for 4x500kg bombs which migh mean the 4 racks were more weight than the 2 for 1t bomb or the nominal 500kg bombs were not really 500kg but 500 plus something.  So if we talk about 4x500kg bombs and config B that gives us 2120kg of Fuel and 2t bombs; An A1 model had 2340km range with 2100kg of fuel and 1.5 t bomb load. So i would say conservatively that more than 2000km would be the range of A4 with 2t bomb load of 4x500kg bombs.

I do agree that the loadouts seem to have some curious options - and I think I said that above. The Japanese case is confusing because essentially the bombers are designed such that full load = normal load. They end up very similar to the Ju-88 in fact - in most instances - although the later ones have more range. I see no advantage to changing what we are doing re horizontal bombers. But as a dive bomber - I think one might want the Ju-88 vs a Ki-48. But no one has said so - not even you - so far (although there are posts I have yet to read).

Btw i have forgot to post the sources: The page 2 range/bomb/loads i finally discovered it came from Squadron Signal 085 Ju-88 Part1 and the 3 bomb loads configs came from http://www.ju88.equitatura.de/rustsatze_e.htm. Root: http://www.ju88.equitatura.de/Index2.htm.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

I'm sorry I haven't read everything, but as I was busy the last days it's really much and my english could be really better to improve my reading speed...


Well, what's the discussion, now?
The change the Ki-48 II to Ju-88 as Dive Bomber? As the Ju should be better, I would like this change.
To add He 111 and/or Do 217 to improve the IJAAF bomber capacities? As far as I know, both of them should be better than most of the Japanese equipment - so please add it as well!
How is the bombload of Bombers defined, that can load Torpedoes? Is it always exchanged by a 800kg bomb or is it in some connection to the maximum load? If the second, it would be nice to give the added bomber the ability to carry Torpedoes, as well!

Is the Fw-190 already out of discussion (sorry for not reading all)?

OK - we have a vote for the Ju-88 as dive bomber. Vice the Ju-87 it is probably better - but it does cost more (54 HI points vise 36 HI points) and fewer will be made. But it will cost the same as a Ki-48 II. I will add my vote - so that is two. Any more?

The He 111 and Do 217 turn out not to have enough range - so I see no advantage for them.

The FW-190 is a fighter - and this thread was limited to bombers (originally dive bombers - and now it is ending with dive bombers as well). A fighter is problematical in that it would have to come at the cost of a slot - and what fighter would we give up to get it? Or what bomber? The only possibility I see would be a Ki-45 II fighter bomber- and they really have different roles. It is probably too late to dig deep into fighters - but if you consider when it is available - the Ki-44 seems better than the FW-190 - either early or late versions (Ki-44 II and Ki-44 III are both in the set - both earlier than a suitable FW-190 for the period would be - at equal cost). The Ki-44 is not well understood - but it is probably superior to any German fighter interceptor that was built in numbers in time to matter for the early or later war periods. Japan should have built a lot more of them vice Ki-43s and even Ki-27s - or even Ki-61s - IMHO. If someone wants to look at fighters - it is time to vote now. This whole thing freezes today and issues tomorrow.

Bear in mind this is EOS family scenarios only - we are not going to have three air art sets - and we are not going to do this to the standard art set for CVO or BBO families.

[Mifune]

I too vote for the Ju-88 as a dive bomber.

[Mifune]

"this thread was limited to bombers" Agreed, any fighter talk (and I certainly have opinions) should be in another thread so we can close this bomber thread question out.