View Full Version : Anyone like to talk about Ju88? or maybe something else

03-21-2004, 04:43 PM

03-21-2004, 04:43 PM

03-21-2004, 04:47 PM
Well, I do not have too much to say if your post ain't more than a questionamrk..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif



"I have given you all the seed bearing plants and herbs to use." - The Bible

03-21-2004, 04:50 PM
Then lets just add some text, for example:

does anyone know about the Ju-88C-4 that was in work including a cockpit?

I hope they will add two additional MG/FF. The standard 3xMG17 + 1xMG/FF ain't very strong armement http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

03-21-2004, 04:51 PM
Why don't you start the conversation off Sana, I'm sure there are plenty of people here happy to talk about the Ju88 and more besides.

FB Music and Campaigns @

03-21-2004, 04:58 PM
I was wondering why they put so weak armement in the Ju88C. This was meant as a destroyer but how many bombers could you down with only one MG/FF. Although the MG17 are undermodeled in IL2 they were not too effective against bombers in reality either.

The heavy Ju88 IS a stabler gunnery platform so you could fire at long range but the MG/FF did not have adequate range. So you could say the small Bf-109E with its 2x20mm cannons was faster, more manouverable, more able to encounter enemy fighter attacks and even better suited for bomber attack than the Ju88C which was designed for this task.

Very strange .......

03-21-2004, 05:36 PM
If you want to see some of the screens of the Ju88 we're going to get go here:



So long.We wish you well.
You told us how you weren't afraid to die.
Well then, so long.Don't cry.
Or feel too down.
Not all martyrs see divinity.
But at least you tried.

03-21-2004, 06:22 PM
One thing with the C-4 is the MG-FF arrangement allowed for the weapon to be reloaded in flight.

That way, a single 20mm cannon potentially offered better combat endurance than, to site your example, the Bf-109E's with wing cannon.

Also, as you point out, the Ju-88 was a stable gun platform for such calibre weapons, so you in theory need less shots anyway to get a given number of hits.

In the end, I suppose what guns it had, it had, so to speak. As the war progressed and "destroyer" version of the Ju-88 evolved, the armament was made more substantial, so the one being modelled is a fairly early version of the concept (compare with early twin engined night fighters like the Do-17 derivatives, which also started out with fairly light gun mounts).

Btw, nice pics on the model, Gershy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall


Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

03-21-2004, 06:59 PM
Anyone remember the solid nosed night fighter version of the 88 in EAW?

THAT is the one I would want for FB!!!

CFS3 has it as a C-6 model i think but their version still carries bombs. Not sure if that is correct. Anybody know?

I thought that somebody was working on the solid nose night fighter version for FB?

03-21-2004, 09:42 PM
How physically different were the ju-88s & t versions? I think they'd be good additions to the game - especially for late-war recon missions. Not to mention the 188 & 388.