Combat aircraft. Comparisons. Indeed, it is worth thinking about this question: why in different countries did they treat the creation of aircraft so differently? If we take Germany as an example for the analysis of the flight, then, indeed, there is a certain oddity in the fact that two almost identical aircraft were in service almost at the same time.
The code word is "almost", for the devil is in the details.
Yes, if you take the same Britain, on the one hand, everything is even more interesting. Wheatley, Blenheim, Wellesley, Wellington - these are just the medium bombers. The Americans had about the same thing, we don't even talk about Japan, there the navy and the army made fun of who was in that much.
So, perhaps, the USSR and Germany were just the exceptions. In general, we bombed the entire war on the "Pawn", the Germans still had a more varied assortment.
And yet.
Three main attack aircraft. Dive bomber Ju.87, horizontal He.111 and something like a medium-versatile Ju-88. If everything is absolutely clear with the first, this is a pure dive bomber, then with the other two …
More precisely, from the 88th.
He could dive. Therefore, there was even a version of a dive bomber, despite the fact that the dive very heavily loaded the frame of the aircraft, which was clearly not originally designed for that. But what to do, in the wake of diving hysteria, and not such projects met. So the Luftwaffe pilots didn't really like the 88 as a dive bomber.
Since 1943, instructions have been issued in general that prohibit bombing from angles greater than 45 degrees. So the Junkers dive bomber turned out to be so-so.
And if we compare the same total mass of real Pe-2 (8,700 kg) and Ju.87 (4,300 kg) dive bombers, then 14,000 kg of Ju-88 is noticeably more. And to get such a massive plane out of a steep dive is not such an easy task. Nobody really wanted to risk it.
In fact, we are considering two "smooth" bombers. If so, it is worth trying to find the differences. Consider the He.111h-16 and Ju.88a-4, they are the same age and were used in the same roles. Ju.88a-4 was still trying to show something there, like a dive bomber, but it was on it that prohibitions and recommendations began.
Let's start with the mass. The maximum take-off (and it is she who interests us, an empty bomber is nonsense) their mass is approximately the same and is equal to 14 tons. The empty Junkers is heavier, but this is normal, it was created already as a military aircraft, and not as a passenger or mail.
Wings. Here it is quite natural that such a recognizable wing of the Heinkel is much larger than that of the Junkers. With practically the same span, the Heinkel's wing area is much larger: 87, 7 sq. M. against 54, 5 for Junkers.
Engines. Almost the same. Heinkel has two Junkers Jumo-211f-2 with a capacity of 1350 liters. with., "Junkers" are expected to have two "Junkers" Jumo-211J-1 or J-2 with a capacity of 1340 hp.
10 "horses" … Not very important, in my opinion. But - we look at the speed characteristics.
111th: maximum speed 430 km / h, cruising speed 370 km / h. At an altitude of 6000 m.
88th: maximum speed 467 km / h, cruising speed 400 km / h. At the same height.
Here it is, the passenger fuselage and the large wing. "Junkers" is a little faster, not critical, but still, 30 km / h is not God knows what figure, but it can turn out to be deadly useful. In the sense that it was more difficult to catch up with Junkers.
Maximum rate of climb. Also roughly equal, 111/88 - 240 versus 230 m / min. Here, yes, just the Heinkel wing plays its role. But - insignificantly.
Range. 111/88: 2000 versus 2700. Again, this is explained by both a more successful layout and volume of tanks, and aerodynamics, which the Junkers clearly had more advanced and modern. And - again - not a passenger one.
The service ceiling is the same, 8500 meters. Which is not surprising given the same mass and engines.
By and large, two planes, different in appearance, but completely identical in essence. We go to the next section.
Armament. Defensive.
Heinkel 111:
- one 20-mm MG-FF cannon in the nose, sometimes a coaxial 7, 9-mm MG-15 machine gun was installed to it;
- one 13 mm MG-131 machine gun in the upper installation;
- two 7, 9-mm MG-81 machine guns in the rear of the lower nacelle;
- one MG-15 or MG-81 or twin MG-81Z in the side windows.
Junkers 88:
- one 7, 9 mm MG-81 machine gun forward;
- one movable 13 mm MG-131 or two 7, 9 mm MG-81 on a movable installation forward;
- two MG-81 back-up;
- one MG-131 or two MG-81 back-down.
Definitely "Heinkel" looks more toothy, and, according to the recollections of our pilots, it was so. And another big plus: "Heinkel" had no "dead" zones at all. In any projection, the enemy was met by machine gun fire, or even several.
Another issue is that after 1943 the rifle caliber became irrelevant, the fighters were armed with cannons and / or large-caliber machine guns and could work because of the range of rifle-caliber machine guns.
But this also applies to Junkers. Where the weapons were even weaker.
What about offensive?
"Heinkel": 32 x 50 kg, or 8 x 250 kg, or 16 x 50 kg in the bomb bay + 1 x 1000 kg bomb on an external holder, or 1 x 2000 kg + 1 x 1000 kg on external holders.
"Junkers": 10 x 50-kg bombs in the bomb bay and 4 x 250-kg or 2 x 500-kg bombs under the center section, or 4 x 500-kg bombs under the center section.
Equal? Basically. That is, 3,000 kg could be dragged away and dumped somewhere by each of the planes. The only difference was that the Heinkel could carry heavier bombs. That's the whole difference.
Finally, the last figure that explains a lot. This is the number of aircraft produced.
Heinkel - 7,716 of all modifications;
Junkers - 15,100.
Actually, this is where the answer lies. The Heinkel, which went into operation 3 years earlier than the Junkers, was a dual-purpose aircraft, and in fact did not differ much from its colleague. But - it was different. As the numbers show, it was not as fast as the Junkers, but was appreciated by the pilots for its excellent handling.
The Luftwaffe actually received two aircraft, not very different in terms of flight characteristics. The only difference was precisely in the use as bombers. The Heinkel could carry larger bombs than the Junkers. But the latter carried the bomb load further and faster.
Even torpedoes were dragged and dropped by both aircraft quite regularly. There is another difference: the Heinkel did not make a night fighter. And both did not know how to dive. More precisely, one did not even try to do it, the second …
It is better to refer to the released modifications here. Yes, they are similar in many ways, but if you put everything together, you get the following alignment.
Heinkel: bomber, torpedo bomber, glider tow, spotter, night bomber, transport aircraft.
Junkers: bomber, torpedo bomber, long-range reconnaissance aircraft, heavy fighter, night fighter, attack aircraft.
In general, there is an imbalance in the Junkers towards combat modifications, which required a faster and more maneuverable aircraft, and the Heinkel occupied the niche of a military and transport aircraft, which was primarily due to its fuselage.
And at the same time, both regularly dropped bombs and torpedoes.
In general, the Luftwaffe made the right choice, in my opinion.
The more advanced and modern Ju-88 was produced wherever possible, since it was declared a priority vehicle for the Reich, and the Heinkel factories, in order not to stand idle, were loaded with an assembly of mastered and familiar machines, the He.111.
Could the Heinkel factories be loaded with Junkers? Easy. The Germans did this quite normally with the Messerschmitts, and not only with them. And to release not 15 thousand 88's, but all 20.
I did not find any differences in the tactics of application, it generally did not shine with variety among the Germans, unlike aircraft modifications. But this is not the main thing.
The main thing is that the Germans could afford to produce two almost identical machines, which were different in design and other components. But if something happened, each of the aircraft could easily and naturally play the role that was more needed at the moment.
Alteration of German aircraft in the field using rustsatz kits was quite commonplace. This practice made it possible to quickly respond to emerging needs for aircraft modifications and resolve them as they appeared.
Not a panacea, but quite sane.
If we take the USSR as an example for comparison, where there were also certain problems with aircraft, then we generally preferred to postpone and close all issues related to the production of bombers.
In fact, the entire war of the Red Army Air Force was drawn out on two strike vehicles: the Il-2 as an attack aircraft and the Pe-2 as everything else. Dive bomber, smooth bomber, and so on. Well, yes, on the old stocks and Lend-Lease there were some attempts at torpedo aircraft. Long-range aviation was rather a tick in the general mass.
11,500 Pe-2 units look pretty serious even in comparison with the number of medium bombers produced in Germany. It is very significant, especially considering that we did not wage a war on three or four fronts.
But it is also not worth comparing the payload and the radius of action, very much not in favor of the Pe-2. But he, however, was not a medium bomber.
The Red Army Air Force preferred one plane for all occasions. The production of all other aircraft was actually discontinued, and all "additional" ones were set aside. Ar-2, Er-2, Yak-4, Su-4 and so on.
Plus, with the modifications of the Pe-2, they also did not particularly strain. Five for Pe-2 and three for Pe-3. Is it worth comparing with more than twenty modifications of the He.111, which went into the series?
Comparison, of course, is not worth it. There was a sense in this. One plane, one set of problems. Agree, even with the Junkers engines, the 111th and 88th were different aircraft, requiring different knowledge and approaches.
Apparently, the Luftwaffe considered it possible to use such tactics, and to the detriment of uniformity, receive an additional 7 thousand aircraft. This is not counting the "Dornier", which also built medium bombers.
It is difficult to say how successful such a practice could be, simply because, despite more than 30 thousand bombers of all types released, Germany lost the war. So the tactics of one aircraft could also play, but the practice of two, which could be converted into anything, is also fully justified.
So finding out who was the coolest of our couple is a very ambiguous task, because both aircraft were very useful both in their direct purpose and in additional ones.
True, this did not help Germany much.
