anyone gonna fly the ju88c6 in mp?

[Night0wl]

Curious if theres more people like me who want to try it online when its released.

 

Im afraid its going to be a suffering but im also curious if it can pose a serious threat to bomber crews.

[Barnacles]

Yes, I'll definitely fly it.

[LuftManu]

Of course!

[Luftschiff]

Naturally, but when I do I will consign myself to rapid and unavoidable death halfway to target.

But it IS a bomber, it HAS wings. I will fly it.

[Barnacles]

7 minutes ago, Luftschiff said:

Naturally, but when I do I will consign myself to rapid and unavoidable death halfway to target.

But it IS a bomber, it HAS wings. I will fly it.

I thought it was a fighter?

[Fritz_X]

1 hour ago, jann3man said:

Im afraid its going to be a suffering [...].

 

I'd like to second that.

 

I'm pleased that the devs have decided to go for the C6, for I really like this version of the Ju-88. That said, I feel like the plane won't be too competitive in our sim, especially when it comes to mp.

 

As much as I like the plane, I feel like that it's poorly armed (especially for a Zerstörer), featuring just a single 20mm MG FF and three MG 17 as forward armament.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Fritz_X

[Night0wl]

18 minutes ago, Fritz_X said:

 

I'd like to second that.

 

I'm pleased that the devs have decided to go for the C6, for I really like this version of the Ju-88. That said, I feel like the plane won't be too competitive in our sim, especially when it comes to mp.

 

As much as I like the plane, I feel like that it's poorly armed (especially for a Zerstörer), featuring just a single 20mm MG FF and three MG 17 as forward armament.

Yeah i really hope theres an option for removed gondola for tripple 20mm

[Lusekofte]

It will be a death trap either way you look at it. Attacking bombers gunners will get you. Groundtargets fighters will get you. Irony is ME 410 will do its job better. 110 also. 
of course  I will fly it

[Feathered_IV]

It doesn’t have the speed to catch any of the bombers, but I would certainly fly it in the recon or intruder mode if the game mechanics or number of ground objects make it worthwhile. I like those underdog types.  

[ShamrockOneFive]

Yeah, 100% I'll be flying it as an attack plane.

[Retnek]

I will - do not underestimate a light-weight Ju-88 with 20% fuel. Let's see.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I will fly it in the attack role, though I have no expectations of it being particularly survivable.  It's no real fighter, at all, and will suffer horribly at the hands of the Allied single seaters.

 

Dogfights against Pe2s and A20s could be fun.

[Lusekofte]

3 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

Dogfights against Pe2s and A20s could be fun.

A 20 will be very challenging. PE 2 is probably a equal match except the gunner. And you will have to deal with the gunner

[HerrBree]

I will definitely be using it. Keep in mind it should be available in scenarios starting in '42 possibly earlier. So its not like it will be facing nothing but the apex of allied fighter technology.

[Lusekofte]

13 minutes ago, HerrBree said:

I will definitely be using it. Keep in mind it should be available in scenarios starting in '42 possibly earlier. So its not like it will be facing nothing but the apex of allied fighter technology.

I do not think this plane will be restricted in any map. It bring fun, but no advantages

[Sublime]

If i learned anything from the last 3 planes released in bobp is all our conjecture means squat.

For one the p51 flew better than anyone expected

NO ONE saw the p38 as the super fighter bomber it is though.

Just like lots of hearts have been broken over the p47

[JG13_opcode]

I want to see the Ju 88C6 on Berloga.

Edited April 29, 2020 by JG13_opcode

[Night0wl]

Hahah you guys make me happy! We should make a zerstorer squad sometime! Im gonna pre order bon as soon as i see work in progress screenshots of the ju88c6 ?

[Godspeed]

I'm sure i will.

 

C6 is also good for anti tank/shipping missions.

 

I cant wait to fly Me 410 and Ju 88c6.

Last time i waited expansion this much was Moscow when first Bf 110 was released.

 

Normandy will be best expansion ever ?

Edited April 29, 2020 by Godspeed

[BlitzPig_EL]

How will the C6 be any better at anti tank missions than any other 20mm armed aircraft in the sim?

 

It only has one autocannon after all, and for it's size is grossly under armed, especially compared to the Bf110.

[Godspeed]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

How will the C6 be any better at anti tank missions than any other 20mm armed aircraft in the sim?

 

It only has one autocannon after all, and for it's size is grossly under armed, especially compared to the Bf110.

 

Can carry more big Baumers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

@BlitzPig_EL

[danielprates]

I am considering going into MP on account of the ju88c alone!

[ShamrockOneFive]

6 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

How will the C6 be any better at anti tank missions than any other 20mm armed aircraft in the sim?

 

It only has one autocannon after all, and for it's size is grossly under armed, especially compared to the Bf110.

 

Should be the three MG-FF 20mm cannons plus three light machine guns, no? And then a bombload.

 

Anti-tank I can't see it being that useful but for an attack mission against a target it could be fun. I'd fly it for the same reason I'd look at the aircraft list and pick the P-40 over a Yak-1B some days. Because it was there, it's different, and it's fun for me to try out and even try and find success in different aircraft.

[Fritz_X]

16 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Should be the three MG-FF 20mm cannons plus three light machine guns, no? And then a bombload.

 

Armament of the destroyer consists only of a single MG-FF 20mm plus three MG-17. And a bombload smaller compared to the A-4's.

 

For more forward firepower you would need the night fighter version, which switches the ventral gondola for two additional MG-FF. Not sure if we're going to see this modification.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Fritz_X

[Retnek]

6 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It only has one autocannon after all, and for it's size is grossly under armed, especially compared to the Bf110.

Oh no! Do not tell me they are that tight-fisted! The C6 was able to carry a further two 20mm in the chin-gondola, MG-FF first. Later models had 3 x MG-151/20. Not only the night-fighters, but the long-range-fighters, too. Wait and see ...

(good pilots won't need 3 cannons, just by the way , one is enough, more than won't make any difference, if you know your business )

[ShamrockOneFive]

5 minutes ago, Fritz_X said:

 

Armament of the destroyer consists only of a single MG-FF 20mm plus three MG-17. And a bombload smaller compared to the A-4's.

 

For more forward firepower you would need the night fighter version, which switches the ventral gondola for two additional MG-FF. Not sure if we're going to see this modification.

 

1 minute ago, Retnek said:

Oh no! Do not tell me they are that tight-fisted! The C6 was able to carry a further two 20mm in the chin-gondola, MG-FF first. Later models had 3 x MG-151/20. Not only the night-fighters, but the long-range-fighters, too. Wait and see ...

(good pilots won't need 3 cannons, just by the way , one is enough, more than won't make any difference, if you know your business )

 

I suppose it does really matter the exact configuration of the Ju88C-6a in the June 1944 time period. 3x MG151/20 retrofitted you say? That'd pack a punch.

[Lusekofte]

I will fly this monstrous plane whatever it carries. And a lot of red players will be grateful for the freekills they get

[41Sqn_Skipper]

 

 

[Retnek]

For the KG 40 over the Biscay it's easy and well documented, see below. Sadly there's not much valid to find about the train-buster operations in Russia. Most logs of KG3 seem to be lost. Maybe there's something new from the Russian archives, one fine day. Looking at the low-level fighterbomber-role the Ju-88 destroyers had I can't see much reason the stay with a single MG-15 covering the back. For the price not to build in 2 x 20 mm? Never. They would have tried to enhance the forward fire-power asap.

One picture is given by Weal (2010), p.85: here's a Ju88-C6 of 14. KG3 with 3 x MG-FF build-in. There's not much more,  but I'd call it a firm hint!

 

 

Here are some further pictures for Ju-88 in Russia from my library. Except the very early Ju-88 C-6 models a "standard"-C-6 until summer/autumn 1943 had the MG-FF build in. Then in rising numbers the Mg-151/20 was used. It would be no surprise to me if the front-line-units started of conversion of MG-FF to MG151/20 with older C-6, too.

 

 

 

For KG 40 over the Biscay see Chris Goss' "Bloody Biscay" (1997). Lot's of pictures show Ju-88 dayfighters with two forward 20-mm-cannons in the gondola. At least some are detailed enough to see it's MG-151/20.

But there's proof even better by Neitzel (1995), p.193. He pointed on the the limited firepower of the Ju-88 C and R over the Biscay, using 3 x 7.9 mm and 3 x 20 mm MG-FF. There was not enough punch to bring down the large planes used by the Coastal Command. To offer some advance in Juli 1943 the MG-FF were replaced by belt-fed and faster firing MG-151/20. 

 

Weal, John A. (2010): Junkers Ju 88 Kampfgeschwader on the Russian Front. Oxford: Osprey (Osprey combat aircraft, 79).

 

 

Goss, Chris (2001): Bloody Biscay - The history of V Gruppe / Kampfgeschwader 40. The story of the Luftwaffe's only long range maritime fighter unit, V Gruppe/Kampfgeschwader 40, and its adversaries 1942-1944. Manchester: Crécy.

Neitzel, Sönke (1995): Der Einsatz der deutschen Luftwaffe über dem Atlantik und der Nordsee 1939 - 1945. Bonn: Bernard & Graefe.

 

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

@Retnek, fantastic research on this aircraft and operations in the Normandy context. That's even more interesting with the MG151/20 plus the two MG-FF in the gondola.

I do hope that we get some firepower with this.

What kind of bomb armaments were carried by this group? Presumably they did carry some in their defense against the invasion before they were wiped out.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

@Retnek Would the Ju 88R also fit in our Normandy timeframe? afaik that was almost the same as the C-6 only with BMW 801s instead of the Jumos. Kinda wishing to make a suggestion for it since we are so early in the development. There it would have some more respectable heavy fighter like characteristics.

[Retnek]

Thx - it is always nice to see exotic knowledge is useful sometimes. I was really surprised to find the Ju-88 C-6 on the list of flyable planes, what a joy. But somehow strange, because the IL2-GB-series never showed much intention to simulate the western front strategic air war at night, where the overwhelming majority of C-6 were used for. So what else to do with that gem?

 

Nightfighting - at the Eastern Front due to lack of radar mainly was dusk- and dawn-operations. Lot's of slow IL-4 (we need them!), stay operational for a long time, long range, I think the NJG-100 had some Ju-88 destroyers.

Trainbusting  - even more attractive to me personally, deep interdicting. Done realistic it has to be a long-range-operation, far behind the line, avoid any air-contact. Low clouds preferred, demands precise navigation with very limited navigational aids. For immersion there should be simulated realistic transport and logistics. Get your reward for the riddled locomotive and place the ten 50 kg bombs precisely on track switches to extend the repair-times somewhat. Will be a demanding job for mission-builders.

 

Maritime daylight-destroyer  - over the Biscay and Normandy, long-range for the patient, too. Il2-GB testing the large Pacific with a little Biscay? Protecting submarines and incoming raiders is fine with me. But the main opponents were Coastal-command bombers. Not that much in game right now. To (dog-)fight there should to be Beaufighters and Mosquitos, too. Trying to strafe the rich hunting grounds near Caen after D-day with a Ju-88 C-6 is asking for a sudden death. Eaten alive by all the allied high-end 150+ octane fighters. Not to mention that endless stream of light AAA tracers coming up to you. A Ju-88 R-2 with extra MW50 plus 15 min emergency-power (a joke!) flying 50 km/h faster than the C-6 (no joke) might survive that seconds longer to hide in the clouds.

@ShamrockOneFive since the Ju-88 C-6 comes with the BoN-extension, I'd expect a correct mainstream-weaponry for that time. So 3 x 7.9 mm plus 3 x 20 MG-FF until Mid-43 and the upgrade to 3 x MG-151/20 later.
There's a story behind that change, not only fire-power. I've searched for the source quite a while, but I can't find it right now. The early C-models had just one MG-FF in the nose, right-hand to the legs of the pilot. Drums had to  to be changed manually by the gunner or radio-operator. As soon as radar was build in, the already badly cramped cockpit of the Ju-88 C became even more cramped. Changing the large, heavy 20-mm-drum was difficult enough, with the radar-display-tubes around it became too much. So in that position a MG-151/20 with a 340 round-belt was build in.
Changing the MG-FF-drums down in the lower gondola wasn't much better, too. Next to enhance the fire-power replacing the MG-FF in gondola offered enhanced crew performance, too. At night any adapted eye was needed to seek for the bombers to bridge the gap between the imperfect short-range resolution of the early radar. The radar operator was blinded by the tubes, pilot sometimes by instruments or muzzle-flashes. During a fight at daylight the gunner needs to handle the defence. No need for Klaus diving down to replace the 20-mm-drums with a Tommy at your tail.

@-=PHX=-SuperEtendard The R-model fits well into Normandy-time-frame, perfectly. I won't expect to find them train-busting in Russia, since the better performance of the BMW-801 was in high demand by the night-fighters. Obviously the V. KG40 (later re-named to I. ZG1) got some, too. Maybe because they had a really tough job not to be massacred by the superior Beaufighters and Mosquitos. Fw-190, Me-110 and the hyped Me-410 were no option out there where Coastal Command went for the submarines - not enough range. I think for a prospering and well established studio like 777 it is basically no problem to satisfy the customers with a R-2-model, too.

 

So let's hope we're able to praise 777-studios for presenting us the basics:

C-6 with 3 x 7.9 mm plus 3 x MG-FF
C-6 with 3 x 7.9 mm plus 1 x (upper) MG151/20 plus 2 x MG-FF

C-6 with 3 x 7.9 mm plus 3 x MG151/20

Backward bomb-bay for 10 x 50 kg or the additional fuel tank

 

Since it will be Christmas soon there are surprise-options - OMG:

(no R-1, was based on older A-1-airframe, not suitable here since the C-6 originated from A-4-line, sorry for that!)

R-2 with 3 x 7.9 mm plus 1 x (upper) MG151/20 plus 2 x MG-FF

R-2 with 3 x 7.9 mm plus 3 x MG151/20

 

And finally, stunning us to secure themselves a peaceful Christmas time:

Front conversion by removing the chin-gondola of the C-6 with 3 x 7.9 mm plus 1 x MG151/20 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Retnek
corrected error with subtype R-1

[Night0wl]

6 hours ago, Retnek said:

Thx - it is always nice to see exotic knowledge is useful sometimes. I was really surprised to find the Ju-88 C-6 on the list of flyable planes, what a joy. But somehow strange, because the IL2-GB-series never showed much intention to simulate the western front strategic air war at night, where the overwhelming majority of C-6 were used for. So what else to do with that gem?

 

Nightfighting - at the Eastern Front due to lack of radar mainly was dusk- and dawn-operations. Lot's of slow IL-4 (we need them!), stay operational for a long time, long range, I think the NJG-100 had some Ju-88 destroyers.

Trainbusting  - even more attractive to me personally, deep interdicting. Done realistic it has to be a long-range-operation, far behind the line, avoid any air-contact. Low clouds preferred, demands precise navigation with very limited navigational aids. For immersion there should be simulated realistic transport and logistics. Get your reward for the riddled locomotive and place the ten 50 kg bombs precisely on track switches to extend the repair-times somewhat. Will be a demanding job for mission-builders.

 

Maritime daylight-destroyer  - over the Biscay and Normandy, long-range for the patient, too. Il2-GB testing the large Pacific with a little Biscay? Protecting submarines and incoming raiders is fine with me. But the main opponents were Coastal-command bombers. Not that much in game right now. To (dog-)fight there should to be Beaufighters and Mosquitos, too. Trying to strafe the rich hunting grounds near Caen after D-day with a Ju-88 C-6 is asking for a sudden death. Eaten alive by all the allied high-end 150+ octane fighters. Not to mention that endless stream of light AAA tracers coming up to you. A Ju-88 R-2 with extra MW50 plus 15 min emergency-power (a joke!) flying 50 km/h faster than the C-6 (no joke) might survive that seconds longer to hide in the clouds.

@ShamrockOneFive since the Ju-88 C-6 comes with the BoN-extension, I'd expect a correct mainstream-weaponry for that time. So 3 x 7.9 mm plus 3 x 20 MG-FF until Mid-43 and the upgrade to 3 x MG-151/20 later.
There's a story behind that change, not only fire-power. I've searched for the source quite a while, but I can't find it right now. The early C-models had just one MG-FF in the nose, right-hand to the legs of the pilot. Drums had to  to be changed manually by the gunner or radio-operator. As soon as radar was build in, the already badly cramped cockpit of the Ju-88 C became even more cramped. Changing the large, heavy 20-mm-drum was difficult enough, with the radar-display-tubes around it became too much. So in that position a MG-151/20 with a 340 round-belt was build in.
Changing the MG-FF-drums down in the lower gondola wasn't much better, too. Next to enhance the fire-power replacing the MG-FF in gondola offered enhanced crew performance, too. At night any adapted eye was needed to seek for the bombers to bridge the gap between the imperfect short-range resolution of the early radar. The radar operator was blinded by the tubes, pilot sometimes by instruments or muzzle-flashes. During a fight at daylight the gunner needs to handle the defence. No need for Klaus diving down to replace the 20-mm-drums with a Tommy at your tail.

@-=PHX=-SuperEtendard The R-model fits well into Normandy-time-frame, perfectly. I won't expect to find them train-busting in Russia, since the better performance of the BMW-801 was in high demand by the night-fighters. Obviously the V. KG40 (later re-named to I. ZG1) got some, too. Maybe because they had a really tough job not to be massacred by the superior Beaufighters and Mosquitos. Fw-190, Me-110 and the hyped Me-410 were no option out there where Coastal Command went for the submarines - not enough range. I think for a prospering and well established studio like 777 it is basically no problem to satisfy the customers with a R-1 and R-2-model, too.

 

So let's hope we're able to praise 777-studios for presenting us the basics:

C-6 with 3 x 7.9 mm plus 3 x MG-FF
C-6 with 3 x 7.9 mm plus 1 x (upper) MG151/20 plus 2 x MG-FF

C-6 with 3 x 7.9 mm plus 3 x MG151/20

Backward bomb-bay for 10 x 50 kg or the additional fuel tank

 

Since it will be Christmas soon there are surprise-options - OMG:

R-1 with 3 x 7.9 mm plus 1 x (upper) MG151/20 plus 2 x MG-FF

R-1 with 3 x 7.9 mm plus 3 x MG151/20

R-2 with 3 x 7.9 mm plus 1 x (upper) MG151/20 plus 2 x MG-FF

R-2 with 3 x 7.9 mm plus 3 x MG151/20

 

And finally, stunning us to secure themselves a peaceful Christmas time:

Front conversion by removing the chin-gondola of the C-6 with 3 x 7.9 mm plus 1 x MG151/20 

 

Awesome info, im trying to contact an old colleague he has a pilots journal or whatever its called i believe theres also notes in it he was on a modified ju88 train buster i believe im not 100% sure but i thought it had twin 40mm in underbelly pod

[Retnek]

5 hours ago, jann3man said:

 

Awesome info, im trying to contact an old colleague he has a pilots journal or whatever its called i believe theres also notes in it he was on a modified ju88 train buster i believe im not 100% sure but i thought it had twin 40mm in underbelly pod

This might point on the Ju-88 P-2, an A-4-conversion with an awful ugly weapon-container under the belly. Containing 2 x 3.7 cm Flak 18, same guns and fire-power as the Ju-87 cannon-boat. According to Nowarra (pp 144) ten were converted. Same disaster to operate as the few Ju-88 P-1 with the 7.5 cm AT-gun.

 

@-=PHX=-SuperEtendard I forgot to mention the Ju-88 R-models have been quite dangerous. Until the introduction of the large rudder (Ju-188 and the Ju-88 G-models) the Ju-88 with the Jumo-211-engine already was somewhat difficult to handle, especially at slow speed. According to reports the handling-problems were enhanced quite a bit with the 300-hp stronger BMW-engines. (btw: I deleted the R1-model from the wishlist. Those are based on the the early A-1-airframes, rare birds, not just different because of another BMW-801-subtype. My error, sorry)

 

I very much hope the developers won't waste a second of precious time for research and construction with any of those orchid-try-and-errors projects. Like that 3.7 cm pod for the Me-110 G-2 - looking ugly and no need for it at all. Useless against tanks or bombers. (see 218 pp, Mankau & Petrick (2001) And please don't waste time building that Me-410-rhino with the 5-cm-gun, too.

 

I think an Englishman (Spitfire-Mitchell or de Havilland?) once said one can see from the lines of a plane if it's good or not. That's obvious for some kind of war-time-conversions.

 

Nowarra, Heinz J. (1987): Die Ju 88 und ihre Folgemuster. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Motorbuch (Nowarra usually is somewhat problematic as a source, but as he was part of the Ju-88-production I tend to trust him in this case)

Mankau, Heinz; Petrick, Peter (2001): Messerschmitt Bf 110 - Me 210 - Me 410. 1. Aufl. Oberhaching: Aviatic-Verlag

[=RvE=Windmills]

12 minutes ago, Retnek said:

I very much hope the developers won't waste a second of precious time for research and construction with any of those orchid-try-and-errors projects. Like that 3.7 cm pod for the Me-110 G-2 - looking ugly and no need for it at all. Useless against tanks or bombers. (see 218 pp, Mankau & Petrick (2001) And please don't waste time building that Me-410-rhino with the 5-cm-gun, too.

 

These are subpar opinions.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I don't think so.  They are based on the subpar performance of these large cannon armed aircraft in actual practice.

[Lusekofte]

Yeah they performed like bricks. 
I do not mind flying a brick, but bricks in this game tend to have fm like a fighter

[Retnek]

3 hours ago, =RvE=Windmills said:

 

These are subpar opinions.

  

If there is enough time and energy left within the 777-studios to build those models correctly - fine! Offers some interesting experience and first hand impressions, why those conversions often failed at the front-lines.
 

But when discussing features for the IL2-GB 777-studios often point on very limited resources. That absolutely ok with me, it is a business after all. So I hope they try to model the mainstream and do not waste time with rare-bird-options.

Looking at the pictures the Me-410 f.e. had quite a few weapon-packs used much more frequent than that 5-cm-monster. There's a series of four volumes by M. Meyer and P. Stipdonk about the destroyer-units of Luftwaffe presenting a nice variety of modifications. (Meyer / Stipdonk - Die deutsche Luftwaffe - Eine Bilddokumentation der Luftwaffe von 1935-1945 - Zerstörer- und Nachtjagdverbände, 4 volumes, VDM-Verlag - https://www.vdmedien24.de/VDM-Verlag)

 

btw: I maybe twice flown that 110 G-2 with the 3.7 cm gun, no experience. War-time reports point on serious problems because of much reduced rudder-efficiency using that weapons-pack. If one can find it that way simulated in IL2-GB - perfect!

 

 

The series above is done with captions in English, the first 3 volumes at least. If you're into Luftwaffe destroyers, it's well worth the money, rare pictures in good quality with references given as good as available. It is still a picture-collection mainly, but done with best care and attention. Since the books are cited strangely quite often, my hopefully more consistent citations:

 

Meyer, Michael; Stipdonk, Paul G. (2006): Die Zerstörer- und Nachtjagdverbände Teil 1. Eine Bilddokumentation der Luftwaffe von 1935-1945 Band 1. 1st ed. 4 volumes. Zweibrücken: VDM Heinz Nickel (Die deutsche Luftwaffe - Eine Bilddokumentation der Luftwaffe von 1935-1945, 1).

 

Meyer, Michael; Stipdonk, Paul G. (2007): Die Zerstörer- und Nachtjagdverbände Teil 2. Eine Bilddokumentation der Luftwaffe von 1935-1945 Band 2. 1st ed. 4 volumes. Zweibrücken: VDM Heinz Nickel (Die deutsche Luftwaffe - Eine Bilddokumentation der Luftwaffe von 1935-1945, 2).

 

Meyer, Michael; Stipdonk, Paul G. (2008): Die Zerstörer- und Nachtjagdverbände Teil 3. Eine Bilddokumentation der Luftwaffe von 1935-1945 Band 3. 1st ed. 4 volumes. Zweibrücken: VDM Heinz Nickel (Die deutsche Luftwaffe - Eine Bilddokumentation der Luftwaffe von 1935-1945, 3).

 

Meyer, Michael; Stipdonk, Paul G. (2009): Die Zerstörer- und Nachtjagdverbände Teil 4. Eine Bilddokumentation der Luftwaffe von 1935-1945 Band 4. 1st ed. 4 volumes. Zweibrücken: VDM Heinz Nickel (Die deutsche Luftwaffe - Eine Bilddokumentation der Luftwaffe von 1935-1945, 4).

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Retnek

[Night0wl]

I too have read that the gun pods on the ju88 damaged the plane when shooting i believe they have tested 75mm pak40 and also 50mm but it damaged the airframe.

 

I agree that a lot planes with at guns strapped to them failed. 

 

Makes you wonder how sturdy the stuka actually was considering it has 3.7mm bks strapped to each wing also i've read many records of stuka's disabling tanks with it seen some pictures of t34 with twin 3.7mm holes in them.

 

[Lusekofte]

JU 88 was all constructed as divebombers. No matter what role it actually had. I think we all agree it would have been much more beneficial for luftwaffe if it was not to have divebomber capabilities. It would have had such a potential not being that heavy and overconstructed, considering how many dive bomber missions it actually did. PE 2 version without dive brakes was the most produced. It was only a few squadrons doing it anyway.