How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

[wild_Willie2]

Just Curieus, how would german mainstream AC like the ju88, he111, me109, fw190, ju87 rate in WITP values ??

[wild_Willie2]

Is the ju88 comparible to the B-25 or more to the ki21 ?

[Marten]

ju88 is more like russian pe2

[Honda]

Well, it all depends on a version. Ju88 was one of the most versatile planes of WW2. Can you imagine it as a dive bomber? It would be great in that role in WitP. Orw He11 as a torpedo bomber (carried 2 I belive). As for the fighters, I really don't want to go into any speculation, it would just end up in a protracted argument intervowen with fanboyist personal insults...[:'(]

[wild_Willie2]

ju88 is more like russian pe2

How many times would the JU-88 actually have been used in the dive bomber role?, I know that it had dive breaks, but could such an massive ac really have dived at 80+ degrees like his smaller counterparts ??

What would have been the range of a combat loaded He111 and Ju88 ?? 6- 8 hexes ??

[Przemcio231]

Well Willie less typing more WITP turn making[:D] as for the range max range of He-111 was 1960 km... for H-16 version an and Ju-88A range was 2730 km... just swith them into miles and you have it:) BTW Ju-88 was used as Dive bomber , Level Bomber and Night Fighter... this plane was nible as for its size...

[captskillet]

FW 190 could hold its own vs any Allied fighter and was better than anything the Japanese had (IMHO), the Bf-109 would have a little trouble vs Mustangs, Thunderbolts & Spitfires but was again better than Japanese fighters.

[herwin]

See my posting on WWII AC ratings elsewhere on this forum.

[Tom Hunter]

Using WitP rules the German aircraft would do very well since the system gives a combat bonus for numeric superiority.

In fact using the WitP combat system would certainly give the Germans a win in the Battle of Britian.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

How many times would the JU-88 actually have been used in the dive bomber role?, I know that it had dive breaks, but could such an massive ac really have dived at 80+ degrees like his smaller counterparts ??

It was used regularly as dive bomber in Finnish Air Force (and of course by Germans) in WW II. Dive angles were 60-80 degrees. In long run it was discovered that extensive diving combat ops strained the structure, so dive breaks in FAF Ju-88s were removed and dive angle was made shallower (45 degrees). It was still dive-bombing, though, Stuvi dive-bombing sight was used. And diving speeds were even increased due to removal of dive breaks.

Just more trivia from other forum:

"But of course, tactics used depended on target. With an area target the 88s used level bombing tactics. For more specific targets, glide bombing. Dive bombing was used inititally, even in 90 degree dives, but that was abandoned to save the planes from the stress, as Finns had very limited capability to repair planes. Glide bombing was found to be very accurate, with best pilots being able to hit the targets within 10 meter accuracy. Glide bombing was also found to be the safest method, since the AA fire had much harder time tracking a bomber coming down on 700-800 km glide, than a bomber fying level or diving with 70-90 degree angles."

Note that Finnish use of term "glide bombing" differs from US use. Glide bombing in FAF ment 45 degree attack using Stuvi dive bombing sight.

"Let me quote you "Lentäjän Näkökulma IV" which is a book about technical and operational aspects of Finnish bombers in WW2:
"After initial operational phase, Finns began to use 45 degree diving angle instead of normal 60 to 80 degrees. As dive brakes were removed, increased diving speed (up to 700km/h) [435mph] made it more difficult for enemy AAA to track the plane. ... To minimize losses, bomb release altitude was often set to 2500 metres [8000ft]. Pull-up would usually take 500 metres. Due to higher release altitude, accuracy was not as good as it had been with smaller dive bombers [Ju-87, Fokker CX presumably]. However in good conditions, experienced crews could hit within ten metres of target."

I've read memoirs of Flt.Mst Rantala, who was Ju-88 pilot during the war, and glide bombing (which is of course nothing but shallow angle dive bombing) was used plenty. I've also read numerous accounts by fighter pilots escorting Ju-88's, who testimony that Ju's dive bombed often."

"To add here. Let's see how PLeLv 44 operated during summer battles 1944 ... (FInnish JU-88 squadron, for others).

12.6. level bombing at night, 2345-0015
14.6. dive bombing with 12 88s, target Soviet tank unit
16.6. dive bombing with 10 88s, target Soviet ships
19.6. dive bombing, target Soviet ships
22.6. dive bombing, target area target
23.6. both dive and level bombing, 11 88s, target Soviet shipping and invasion beachhead. Cloud level low 2600-3000 meters, so some planes were forced to bomb from level. (diving preferred)
28.6. diving bombing with 11 ju88s, target Tali bridges
29.6. dive bombing with 12 88s, target Soviet troop concentration
30.6. dive bombing with 12 88s, target troop concentration. Dive from 4000 meters, bomb release at 2500 meters.
1.7. dive bombing with 7 88s, target Soviet shipping

"Quote: Bombed with dive bombing 6-7 large ships, east of Pulliniemi at 14.35. Bombs 5 x 1000 kg, 4 x 500 kg and 14 x 250 kg. One direct hit to a large ship, ship exploded. Another big ship hit with two bombs. A third smaller ship sunk immediately. 1000 kg bomb missed a large ship with 15 meters, the ship did not move anymore and leaked oil. JK-262 was attacked with two Soviet fighters, who followed it for 30-40 km without firing. Own Messerschmitts escorted"
-
3.7. attack, no mention of tactics
5.7. both level and dive bombing, 10 Ju88s, target Soviet forces at Tali-Ihantala
5.7. attack to Äyräpää, no mention of tactics
8.7. dive bombin with 9 88s, target Soviet tanks, concentrations and artillery at Äyräpää.

Source: Suomen Ilmavoimien Historia 4, LeR4 (Finnish Air Force History, Bomber Regiment 4), published 2002.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/kari.stenman/sih19.html
and History of PommitusLentoLaivue 44 by Matti Hämäläinen, 2003"

Hope this clears the dive-bombing aspect...[:D]

[wild_Willie2]

H-16 version an and Ju-88A range was 2730 km... just swith them into miles and you have it:)

(2730/1.6)/60 = 28 hexes [X(][X(][X(][X(] even a B24 won' t go that far....... [&o][&o][&o]

[Arkady]

well, it is transfer range...
count 14 for extended and 9 for normal range

[Sneer]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Using WitP rules the German aircraft would do very well since the system gives a combat bonus for numeric superiority.

In fact using the WitP combat system would certainly give the Germans a win in the Battle of Britian.

Yes and you need to add that whole battle would take less than 1 week time[:D]

[Sardaukar]

Plus German Messerschmitt was bit faster than both Spitfire and Hurricane during BoB, so that's additional advantage for Germans in WitP combat calculations !! [:D]

[el cid again]

FW 190 could hold its own vs any Allied fighter and was better than anything the Japanese had (IMHO), the Bf-109 would have a little trouble vs Mustangs, Thunderbolts & Spitfires but was again better than Japanese fighters.

Actually, in the expert opinion of aviation leaders in wartime Japan, it was not. They had licence agreements to build German planes, and had imported a number for testing purposes, and continued to do so during the war. Ernst Hienkel spent years in Japan at Hitachi, and a number of his planes had some influence on Japanese designs, while others almost were produced (including a remarkable recon plane). The Ki-44 was chosen over the German competators, and Rene Francillon says (in his difinitive Japanese Aircraft of the Second World War) they had no reason to regret the decision. The Ki-44 actually is better than a FW-190 - if you don't cheat and pick marks not available on a same date basis.

There were technical design problems with most German aircraft re the Pacific: they lacked the range (a lot like IJA aircraft did - for a similar reason - they were designed to fight on the Eurasian land mass). The FW-200 was in fact purchased, but it didn't quite make it into production, and it was a very haphazzard military aircraft (being a converted airliner).
Japan also never forgot about Russia and its planes were designed for cold weather operations in a sense few other nations did. Only late in the war did German aircraft impress the Japanese, who successfully designed jet engines, rocket engines, and airframes based on information the Germans supplied. They also had some interesting guided missiles and smart bombs in development - also overtaken by events and delayed by the horrible state of late war industry.

WWII involved astonishing evolution of aircraft. It has not been so since.
During the war very new and modern ideas became obsolescent in a couple of years. The Japanese aircraft industry was heavily influenced by foreign aircraft designers (as, in fact all aircraft industries are). But the situation was different in Japan, and that resulted in different requirements than Germany had. There is a new study of German bomber programs and concepts (Luftwaffe Over America) - and it is depressing reading. In many ways the Germans never had a plan, and could not execute the plans they had, and often failed to even realize the designes they decided to make - or it took far too long. Often - by the time a design could reach Japan - it was no longer of interest.

[el cid again]

(2730/1.6)/60 = 28 hexes even a B24 won' t go that far.......

B-24D: 200 mph times 855 minutes = 2850 miles = 47.5 hexes
B-24J: 190 mph times 663 minutes = 2099.5 miles = 34.9 hexes
Liberator II: 190 mph x 850 minutes = 2692.8 miles = 44.8 hexes
Liberator VI: same as B-24J
PB4Y1: 148 mph times 1200 minutes = 2960 miles = 49.3 hexes

These are the Liberators in RHS. The entire air database will enter testing today.

[el cid again]

Using WitP rules the German aircraft would do very well since the system gives a combat bonus for numeric superiority.

There is an algorithm from World War I that seems generally to be correct - and it holds numbers DO matter. But I am not persuaded they matter in WITP. They do not appear to be modeled correctly. In some ways you can say they matter too much (a really big battle involves fewer engagements per plane in reality), but for a regular battle there is no real "ganging up" on the outnumbered side - everyone sedately pairs off!

[wild_Willie2]

well, it is transfer range...
count 14 for extended and 9 for normal range

So the ju88 had better range than allied and japanese medium bombers, how about armor and bombload?.
I know that defensive armament was quite light compared to allies bombers (3-4 7,9mm mg's)...

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

well, it is transfer range...
count 14 for extended and 9 for normal range

So the ju88 had better range than allied and japanese medium bombers, how about armor and bombload?.
I know that defensive armament was quite light compared to allies bombers (3-4 7,9mm mg's)...

It all depends on what Mark and model of the Ju-88 you speak of. The bomber models certainly didn't have anything like the range of the Betty or the Nell, or the defensive armament of the B-25 or B-26.
It was a fast, capable, and flexible airframe that did good service in many roles, but it wasn't a super-aircraft. It was the best of German Bomber A/C produced in any numbers, and used in virtually every role an aircraft could be asked to perform except transport.

It's kind of like the situation with the Fw-190. The A models (1942) were excellent performers at low and medium altitudes and were the mainstay fighter-bomber of the Luftwaffe---but above 20,000 ft performance started to fall off. The D model (1944) was almost a totally different aircraft with excellent high altitude performance..., but wasn't much good as a fighter-bomber or at low altitude.

[niceguy2005]

I was just watching a show on WWII ac last night. I think the JU88 Stuka would have been outdated by the time 1943 roled around. I fine early war plane when facing early Brittish, French and Russian aircraft. Wildcats would have chased it down and chewed them up.

Similarly, it is hard to compare ac from Europe to the pacific because of the differences in the war. European AC were often more about ground support and air superiority missions. The pacific was about having the range to find and reach your enemy and defend yourself while doing it. The US tended to allocate its AC accordingly.