Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ropalcz

Ju 88 C series

Recommended Posts

Hi, do you think there is any chance we will get the Zerstörer version of Ju 88? Its basically A-4 with nose guns (3x20mm). It was used as a train buster in the east in 42-43. Only thing our Ju 88 is missing now is the offensive gun armament. It would be basically 110 on steroids :biggrin:

 

Spoiler

1104150054_1-Ju-88A-6.KG3-(5K-)-Russia-1941-01.thumb.jpg.0527ec722ac31b1925716ae8946fe1b0.jpg1064534128_1-Ju-88C-4.KG76-(F1XM)-Russia-1942-43-01.jpg.bd691476591b8301ae877e57aad8554b.jpgkg3_ju88c_6.jpg.b0d48dea973037fb69aef348cbca8bf3.jpg

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were used in the Kuban and/or Stalingrad, definitely.

 

If not, while I would still like to have it, I’d prefer to see something that was there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One unit of those planes had base in Taganrog, which is almost exactly half way between Crimea and Stalingrad (Volgograd).

 

Edit: Planes of this type served also in the west - from Bordeau-Merignac against allied naval patrol planes and transport ships.

 

Inked2_53_b1_LI.thumb.jpg.22da432c35367b1dcab35344df89341d.jpg

Edited by Ropalcz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C6 and S3 would be great.

 

I'm also wishing for a dedicated A17 torpedo variant, when the boat suppositories will be implemented.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, PB_Cybermat47 said:

If they were used in the Kuban and/or Stalingrad, definitely.

 

They definitely were, no doubt about that. III./KG 76, for instance, had a number on hand starting in May 1942 (eventually using them at Stalingrad) and kept them almost to the end of 1943, even when they switched fronts.

 

Edited by LukeFF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be a nice addition. But the default armament wasn't that impressive. It had a single Mg-FF cannon, and three Mg-17's. The extra cannon's where a modification i believe. 

 

Junkers Ju 88 C6

 

Grt M

Edited by I./ZG1_Martijnvdm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have my references at hand but I believe that the modification of the bodenwanne to accomodate the twin MG FF/M was factory standard on the C6.

 

It may have been a field mod on earlier variants or prototypes. 

 

With the overall timeframe of IL2, it makes more sense to get that late variant based on the A4 airframe I think. It would also cut down on development costs (no I'm absolutely not biased towards the more gunz variant :P)

Edited by F/JG300_Gruber
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, I./ZG1_Martijnvdm said:

I think it would be a nice addition. But the default armament wasn't that impressive. It had a single Mg-FF cannon, and three Mg-17's. The extra cannon's where a modification i believe. 

 

Junkers Ju 88 C6

 

Grt M

 Yep, but still much better than our current Ju. Btw this one exactly has extra two forward forward aiming 20 milimeters in the gondola 😄

 

Edit: Even the version with 3xMG17 and one MG FF/M would be a reason for celebration 😄

Edited by Ropalcz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, F/JG300_Gruber said:

I don't have my references at hand but I believe that the modification of the bodenwanne to accomodate the twin MG FF/M was factory standard on the C6.

 

It may have been a field mod on earlier variants or prototypes. 

 

With the overall timeframe of IL2, it makes more sense to get that late variant based on the A4 airframe I think. It would also cut down on development costs (no I'm absolutely not biased towards the more gunz variant :P)

 

That could be true. Makes sense to only model the late model which was used at Stalingrad. 

16 minutes ago, Ropalcz said:

 Yep, but still much better than our current Ju. Btw this one exactly has extra two forward forward aiming 20 milimeters in the gondola 😄

 

Edit: Even the version with 3xMG17 and one MG FF/M would be a reason for celebration 😄

 

I agree... Even without the extra armament it would be a cool and welcome addition. 

 

Grt M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read that there was a version A-14 which was basically A-4 with one MG FF/M in the gondola. Also the Finns have made field tuning of A-4 (also 20 mil). Inked1-Ju-88A-FAF-LeLv44-JK-256-Onttola-1944-01_LI.jpg.f911b25ede2ab1f46912497ef59678a1.jpg

 

Ju 88 A-4 LeLv44 JK-256, Onttola 1944

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2018 at 3:09 PM, Ropalcz said:

Only thing our Ju 88 is missing now is the offensive gun armament.

 

Ahem... I'd take the Stuvi before anything else on the Ju88.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

Ahem... I'd take the Stuvi before anything else on the Ju88.

 

Forgot to mention it. Also for Stuvi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it not common for Ju-88's to remove the dive-brakes when only used as bomber? That would be nice to have if if they ever add Stuvi. 

 

Grt M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, I./ZG1_Martijnvdm said:

Was it not common for Ju-88's to remove the dive-brakes when only used as bomber? That would be nice to have if if they ever add Stuvi. 

 

Yes, in the notes I have, this started becoming common in 1942, along with removing the nose-mounted MG 81.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yes, in the notes I have, this started becoming common in 1942, along with removing the nose-mounted MG 81.

 

Thnx. I thought i read this somewhere, but wasn't sure about. I wonder what kind of speed difference it would make.

 

Grt M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2018 at 12:03 AM, Ropalcz said:

I just read that there was a version A-14 which was basically A-4 with one MG FF/M in the gondola. Also the Finns have made field tuning of A-4 (also 20 mil). Inked1-Ju-88A-FAF-LeLv44-JK-256-Onttola-1944-01_LI.jpg.f911b25ede2ab1f46912497ef59678a1.jpg

 

Ju 88 A-4 LeLv44 JK-256, Onttola 1944

 

Problem is that iirc the mounting of the single 20mm comes at the expense of the bombsight.

 

You basically end up with a fatter underarmed bf110. 

 

I'd prefer a dedicated zerstorer version

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, F/JG300_Gruber said:

 

Problem is that iirc the mounting of the single 20mm comes at the expense of the bombsight.

 

You basically end up with a fatter underarmed bf110. 

 

I'd prefer a dedicated zerstorer version

 

Agree. And since the Bf-110 is already an AAA magnet, the Ju-88 is even going to be worse.

 

Grt M

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, dedicated C variant would be the best, but A-4 with Stuvi and 20mm also isn't a bad idea.

 

Does anyone know, whether the extra 20mm was fired by the pilot himself?

Edited by Ropalcz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just discovered this topic, I made a similar post earlier this year. Other version of ju88 (which is my favourite plane along with fw 190) could be awesome, especially the c and p version. And S version too for Bodenplatte ^^. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the usual bombload of a C-6 in A/G missions?

 

IIRC they still had the bomb bay, but could (would) they also carry heavy bombs on the inner wing racks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

What was the usual bombload of a C-6 in A/G missions?

Standard armament were the 50kg bombs in the internal bomb bay, but I've read combat reports of units equipped with the C6 that mention the use AB 500 bombs, so obviously it was possible to fit wing racks if necessary.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2018 at 2:16 AM, I./ZG1_Dutchvdm said:

Was it not common for Ju-88's to remove the dive-brakes when only used as bomber? That would be nice to have if if they ever add Stuvi. 

 

Grt M

 

On 8/23/2018 at 3:55 AM, LukeFF said:

 

Yes, in the notes I have, this started becoming common in 1942, along with removing the nose-mounted MG 81.

 

I wish the developers could implement these modifications. Removal of dive breaks and removal of the front gunners MG 81.  It surely can't be that much work to remove a few functioning bits off the Ju-88.

 

https://youtu.be/9DZlVk3nC7E?t=1290

 

The front MG 81 obscures the dials for the engines and is practically useless in defense of the aircraft. Removed dive breaks would provide only little speed improvement, but it would be nice to see more field modifications.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Sd.Kfz.251-1-Ausf*C-APC
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Does anybody know if Ju 88Cs were used as stop-gap night fighters in the east?

Not as stop-gap but as regular night fighters. First by IV./NJG 5 and later by parts of NJG 100 and 200.  Both versions with radar and without radar were used.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...