Jump to content

Mosquito versus Ju88

Recommended Posts

Mosquito verses Ju88, which was best.


These two are probably the most versatile aircraft of the war (in repect of number of roles served.


The Mosquito was once described as "Jack of all trades and master of all"


Someone else said that after the Mosquito the RAF had to wait for Panavia Tornado to have another Jack of all trades master of all.


In as much as the germans decided to copy the Mosquito (even down to it's name and it's wooden construction) I would argue that the Mossie is the best Multi role aircraft of the war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit of a long one this but very interesting none the less



Manufacturers Designation: Ju 88

Development History:

Ju 88C V1 Prototype Zerstörer. Conversion of Ju 88 V7. Four crew, two 1,200 hp (895 kW) Jumo 211B-1 liquid-cooled engines, three MG 15s plus internal bomb load.

Ju 88C-0 Pre-production version of Zerstörer. Conversions of Ju 88A-1 aircraft.

Ju 88C-1 Planned production version of C-0 with two 1,600 hp BMW 801MA air-cooled radial engines. Conversion of A-1 with three MG 17 machine-guns and one 20 mm MG FF cannon. None completed.

Ju 88C-2 Initial production version for Zerstörer role. Modified Ju 88A-1 with new non-glazed nose, two 1,200 hp Jumo 211B-1 engines, 3 crew, three fixed forward-firing 7.9 mm MG 17 machine-guns and one 20 mm MG FF cannon, plus two defensive 7.9 mm MG 15 machine-guns in dorsal and ventral positions. Maximum bomb load 1,102 lb (550 kg).

Ju 88C-3 Modified C-2 with two 1,600 hp BMW 801MA engines. One conversion.

Ju 88C-4 Zerstörer/reconnaissance version. Modified Ju 88A-4 with solid nose, two Jumo 211F-1 engines, increased armament to two 20 mm MG FF cannon in ventral gondola (swapped for cameras in recce role), extra 7.9 mm MG 15 in rear of gondola, more crew armour protection, increased weight, strengthened undercarriage. First new-build version.

Ju 88C-4/R Late production model of C-4 with 1,340 hp (1,000 kW) Jumo 211J-1 or J-2 engines.

Ju 88C-5 Zerstörer version. Improved C-4 with two 1,700 hp (1268 kW) BMW 801D-2, 3 crew, ventral gondola replaced by 'Waffentropfen' weapon pack below fuselage with two MG 17s and MG FF cannon replaced by MG 151. 10 pre-production examples only.

Ju 88C-6a Day-Zerstörer version. Modified C-4 with two Jumo 211J-1 or J-2 engines, increased armour plating, fixed armament of three 7.9 mm MG 17s and one 20 mm MG FF cannon in the nose plus two MG FF in re-introduced ventral gondola plus one defensive MG 15 or MG 131. Various armament modifications.

Ju 88C-6b Night-fighter version. Designation applied retroactively to C-6a when fitted with FuG 202 Lichtenstein BC or (by Autumn 1942) FuG 212 Lichtenstein C-1 radar. New HF radio.

Ju 88C-6c As C-6b with FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2 plus (some models) Lichtenstein C-1, defensive armament one MG 131, some later with two oblique upward-firing 20 mm MG 151s in dorsal 'Schräge Musik' installation. Some with Jumo 211H turbocharged engines.

Ju 88C-7a Intruder version with two Jumo 211J-1 engines, 2-3 crew, ventral gondola replaced by jettisonable ventral weapon pack with two MG FF/M, three fixed forward-firing MG 17s, max bomb load 1,102 lb (500 kg).

Ju 88C-7b As C-7a with underwing bomb-racks, max bomb load 3,305 lb (1,500 kg).

Ju 88C-7c Zerstörer version, modified C-7a, two 1,600 hp BMW 801MA engines, three MG 17 and one MG 151 in nose plus two MG FF in weapon pack, no bomb racks. Pre-production batch only.

Ju 88P V1 Anti-tank prototype. Modified A-4 with one 75 mm KwK 39 anti-tank cannon forward plus twin 7.9 mm MG 81Z aft of large ventral fairing. Two 1,340 hp Jumo 211J engines.

Ju 88P-1 Production model of Ju 88P V1 with solid unglazed nose, KwK 39 replaced by 75 mm PaK 40 anti-tank cannon, 2 or 3 crew, one forward firing MG 81 for sighting of cannon plus two twin MG 81Zs.

Ju 88P-2 As P-1 with two 37 mm BK 3.7 (Flak 38) cannon in large ventral fairing. A-4 conversions.

Ju 88P-3 As P-2 with increased armour plating, two Jumo 211H engines. A-4 conversions.

Ju 88P-4 Heavy fighter/anti-tank version, two Jumo 211J-2 engines, offensive armament reduced to single 50 mm BK 5 cannon, shortened ventral fairing. One aircraft fitted with 22-shot launcher for RZ 65 rockets, for testing.

Ju 88R-1 Night-fighter version. Re-engined C-6b with two 1,600 hp BMW 801MA or 801C engines and FuG 212 Lichenstein C-1 radar. Three MG 17 and one 20 mm MG 151/20 in nose plus two MG FF in ventral gondola.

Ju 88R-2 Version of R-1 with two 1,700 hp BMW 801D and the addition of FuG 202 Lichtenstein BC plus FuG 217 Neptun R tail-warning radar. Some also fitted with FuG 350 Naxos Z passive radar.

Ju 88G V1 Prototype of improved night-fighter version. Modified Ju 88R-2 with two 1,700 hp BMW 801D engines, 3 crew, two fixed MG 151s in fuselage nose and four fixed MG 151/20s in ventral gun tray plus one 13 mm MG 131 at rear of cockpit, FuG 212 Lichtenstein C-1 radar.

Ju 88G-0 Pre-production night-fighter version. Reduced armament (four MG 151/20), FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2 radar, more angular fin and rudder shape.

Ju 88G-1 Production version of G-0. BMW 801D engines. Some modified equipment, four MG 151s in ventral gun tray; Lichtenstein SN-2 radar plus FuG-227 Flensburg homing receiver.

Ju 88G-2 Version of G-1 with revised equipment. Production cancelled.

Ju 88G-3 Project only.

Ju 88G-4 Improved version of G-1. Small equipment changes. Some with two oblique upward-firing 20 mm MG 151 in dorsal 'Schräge Musik' installation.

Ju 88G-5 Version of G-1 with revised equipment. Project only.

Ju 88G-6a Version of G-4. Dorsal 'Schräge Musik' installation now standard with two 20 mm MG 151/20s. Two 1,700 hp BMW 801G engines, improved equipment. Aft facing antenna for SN-2 introduced.

Ju 88G-6b As for G-6a , addition of FuG 350 Naxos Z in cockpit roof, increased fuel capacity.

Ju 88G-6c Two 1,750 hp (1,306 kW) Jumo 213A, reduced fuel capacity, 'Schräge Musik' installation moved to just aft of cockpit.

Ju 88G-7a Introduced pointed wing tips from Ju 188, span increased to 72 ft 2 in?, two 1,725 hp Jumo 213E with MW 50 power booster, very broad propeller blades, 3 crew, FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2 radar.

Ju 88G-7b As G-7a with FuG 228 Lichtenstein SN-3 or FuG 218 Neptun VR radar (as Ju 88G-7n), some with pointed wooden nose cone.

Ju 88G-7c As for G-7a with FuG 240 Berlin N-1a radar in blunt wooden nose cone. No external aerials.

Ju 88G-8 Long range Zerstörer. As for G-7 but with fuselage of H-2.

Ju 88G-10 Similar to G-8 but used for Mistel programme.

Ju 88G-12 Developed into the Ju 188R series.

Ju 88H-2 Long range fighter version of Ju 88H-1 reconnaissance aircraft. Based on stretched Ju 88D-1 fuselage with Ju 88G-1 wings and engines. Two 20 mm MG 151 cannon in solid nose and four more in belly pack. No radar.

Ju 88N Unofficial designation for one Ju 88C-4 fitted with Nebelwerfer rocket launcher.

Mistel 2 Composite flying bomb with Fw 190A-6 (or Fw 190F-8) upper stage and Ju 88G-1 lower stage. Cockpit section replaced by bolt-on shaped charge warhead.

Mistel S2 Trainer conversion of Mistel 2.

Mistel 3C Composite flying bomb with Fw 190A-8 and Ju 88G-10. Project only.


Mosqutio Specs


Prototype/PR.1 Prototype and first few photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Easily distinguishable by short engine nacelles. Two Rolls-Royce Merlin 21 engines with two speed, single stage superchargers and De Havilland hydromatic propellers.

F.II Fighter. Developed from prototype W4052. Four 20mm cannon and four.303in Browning machine guns. Rolls-Royce Merlin 21 and 23 engines. Two were built experimentally with a rotating dorsal turret equipped with four .303in machine guns. Some examples converted to PR.II.

T.III Trainer. As Mark II but with dual control and without armament. Rolls-Royce Merlin 21 and 23 engines

B.IV Unarmed bomber. Like the PR.1 but with longer engine nacelles. Rolls-Royce Merlin 21 and 23 engines. Capacity for four 500lb bombs (with shortened fins) in the fuselage in place of the four 250lb bombs in the original design. Later modified to carry a 4000lb bomb (blockbuster or "cookie") with a bulged bomb-bay. The first operational sorties were made in daylight to Cologne. The first bombing of Berlin by daylight was made by B.IV's on 30th January 1943.

PR.IV Unarmed photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Like the B.IV, but with provision for cameras instead of bombs. A variant of the PR.IV was supplied to BOAC as the prototype Mosquito courier-transport. 'Accommodation' for the two passengers was on their backs in the felt-padded bomb bay.

B.V Prototype developed from the B.IV with new 'standard wing' to take either two 50 gallon jettisonable wing tanks or two 500lb bombs. Rolls-Royce Merlin 23 engines. This aircraft was the basis of the Canadian B.VII.

FB.VI Fighter bomber. Developed from the NF.II with Rolls- Royce Merlin 22, 23 and 25 engines. Same armament as the NF.II plus two 50 gallon jettisonable wing tanks or two 500lb bombs (or extra tankage in the fuselage behind the cannon). Provision was made in 1944 to carry four 60lb rockets under each wing in place of the wing tanks or bombs for attacks on shipping. Two Mk.6 Mosquitos were modified for deck landing and converted to Sea Mosquitos by adding an arrestor hook, strengthening the rear fuselage and fitting four bladed propellers, becoming the basis for the Mk.33.

B.VII Bomber. First 25 Canadian built Mosquitos based on the B.V, but with Packard Merlin 31 engines driving Hamilton standard propellers.

PR.VIII Photo-reconnaissance aircraft. The first high altitude Mosquitos. The PR.VIII was converted from B.IV by fitting special Merlin 61 intercooled engines with two speed, two stage superchargers and adding provision for two 50 gallon jettisonable wing tanks. Only five were built.

B.IX Bomber. First high altitude unarmed bomber. Merlin 72 intercooled engines with two speed, two stage superchargers. Capacity for four 500lb bombs in the fuselage and two 500lb bombs on the wings or extra fuselage fuel tanks and 50 gallon jettisonable wing tanks. A few were converted to take one 4000lb bomb in the fuselage with two 50 gallon jettisonable wing tanks which were later in 1944 replaced by 100 gallon jettisonable wing tanks subject to a weight limitation of 25,200lb. A Pathfinder version was developed by the RAF.


PR.IX Photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Photo-reconnaissance version of the B.IX, used by the RAF and US 8th Air Force for meteorological reconnaissance over Europe before all major day and night bombing raids.

FB.X Proposed fighter bomber as FB.VI but with Merlin 67 engines. Never built.

Mk.XI Mark never used.

NF.XII Fighter. Four cannon fighter developed from the NF.II, but with the four machine guns and the A.I. Mk. 5 radar being replaced by centimetric A.I. Mk 8 radar in nose radome. Merlin 21 and 23 engines. The 'standard wing' was not fitted.

NF.XIII Fighter.Four cannon fighter developed from the FB.VI. The four machine guns in the nose replaced by A.I Mk 8 radar in 'bull' nose. Merlin 21 and 23 engines.

NF.XIV Proposed fighter as NF.XIII but with high altitude Merlin 67 engines. Never built.

NF.XV Fighter. Special high altitude fighter developed in only seven days from pressure cabin prototype PR.VIII with extended wing tips, reduced fuel tankage and four .303in machine guns in a blister under the fuselage. Only five built.

B.XVI Bomber. Pressure cabin development of the B.IX with Merlin 72, 73, 76 and 77 engines able to carry 3000lb bombs. All were converted in 1944 to take 4000lb bomb in the fuselage and two 50 gallon wing drop tanks or 100 gallon drop tanks with four 500lb bombs.

PR.XVI Photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Photo-reconnaissance version of the B.XVI. Three extra fuel tanks fitted in the bomb bay. In addition to the cameras carried in the fuselage, one F.52 camera could be carried in each drop tank.

NF.XVII Fighter. Fighter developed from and similar to the NF.XII with American A.I. Mk 10 radar.

FB.XVIII Fighter bomber. The 'Tsetse'. Developed from the FB.VI with the nose modified to take a six-pounder (57mm) anti-tank gun instead of the four 20mm cannon. The six-pounder could fire 25 shells in 20 seconds. Merlin 25 engines. Used mainly by Coastal Command against submarines and shipping.

NF.XIX Fighter. Developed from and similar to the NF.XIII, but with Merlin 25 engines and able to take either British or American radar sets. In 1948-49, 45 were overhauled and fitted with four blade airscrews and supplied to the Royal Swedish Air Force who designated the aircraft the J.30.

B.XX Bomber. Second batch of Canadian production. Similar to the B.VII but with Canadian-American equipment and Packard Merlin 31 or 33 engines. Forty fitted with cameras were supplied to the USAAF (who designated them the F.8) and were used for meteorological and operational reconnaissance.

FB.21 Fighter bomber. Canadian built fighter bomber corresponding to the FB.VI otherwise as the B.XX. Only three were built, one with Packard Merlin 33 engines, the other two with Packard Merlin 31 engines. Replaced by the FB.26.

T.22 Trainer. Canadian built unarmed dual control trainer based on the FB.21 with Packard Merlin 33 engines. Only six were built. Similar to the T.III.

B.23 Bomber. Canadian built high altitude bomber. A development of the B.XX to make use of Packard Merlin 69 engines. Not proceeded with because sufficient supplies of Packard Merlin 225 (single stage, supercharged) engines became available.

FB.24 Fighter bomber. Canadian built high altitude fighter bomber developed from the FB.21 with Packard Merlin 301 (two stage, supercharged) engines. Only one built.

B.25 Bomber. Canadian built bomber identical to the B.XX but with Packard Merlin 225 engines.

FB.26 Fighter bomber. Canadian built fighter bomber developed from the FB.VI but with Packard Merlin 225 engines and Canadian-American equipment.

T.27 Trainer. Canadian built trainer developed from the T.22 with Packard Merlin 225 engines.

FB.28 Model number allocated to Canada, not taken up.

B or FB.29 Dual control trainer development of FB.26, Packard Merlin 225 engines. All were conversions from FB.26's.

NF.30 Fighter. Developed from the NF.XIX with high altitude Merlin 72, 76 and 113 engines.

Mk.31 Reserved for a Packard Merlin engined night fighter variant which was never built.

PR.32 Photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Specially lightened version of the PR.XVI with Merlin 113 and 114 (two stage, supercharged) engines and extended wing tips for high altitude operation.

TF/TR.33 Fleet Air Arm version developed from the FB.VI for multi role operation. Merlin 25 engines, manually operated folding wings and pneumatic landing gear with smaller wheels.

PR.34 Photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Very long range development of the PR.XVI with Merlin 113 and 114 engines. This was the fastest version of the Mosquito managing 422mph in level flight.

PR.34a Modernised version of the PR.34 with a revised cockpit layout.

B.35 Bomber. Similar to the B.XVI except for Merlin 114 engines in early versions, Merlin 114A engines in later versions. 274 built, including 65 by Airspeed Ltd.

PR.35 Photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Ten converted from B.35's.

TT.35 Target tower. Modified from B.35.

NF.36 Fighter. High powered development of the NF.30 with Merlin 113 engines and American A.I. MK 10 radar. Armament consisted of four 20mm cannon.

TR/TF.37 Torpedo fighter/bomber. Similar to the T.33 with British ASV Mk. 13B radar fitted in a 'bull' nose.

NF.38 Fighter. Similar to the NF.36, fitted with British A.I. Mk 9 radar. Merlin 113, 114, 113A or 114A engines.

TT.39 Target tower. Target tower converted from B.XVI.

FB.40 Fighter. First Australian built Mosquitos, based on the FB.VI with Hamilton Standard or Australian built De Havilland hydromatic propellers. The first 100 aircraft were built with Packard Merlin 31 engines, thereafter, Packard Merlin 33 engines.

PR.40 Photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Australian built conversion of the FB.40. Packard Merlin 31 engines.

PR.41 Photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Australian built, similar to the PR.40 but with extra radio gear and Packard Merlin 69 (two stage, supercharged) engines.

FB.42 Fighter Bomber. Australian built adaptation of an FB.40 to take the Packard Merlin 69 engine. After testing, the project was dropped and the aircraft became the prototype for the PR.41.

T.43 Trainer. Australian built conversion of the FB.40 and almost identical except for the addition of dual controls and dual elevator trim tabs.




Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks wise, I prefer the Ju88. Yes the Mosquito and Spitfire and pretty aircraft, but I prefer my planes to look aggressive and mean business. One reason I prefer the P-47 Thunderbolt over the P-51 Mustang. Beauty is very subjective.


Comparing specifications was quite interesting. I also put the Russian Pe2 fighter/bomber into the pot to see how that compared. Numbers built for the three aircraft are as follows, with 11,400 Pe2's in operation for 15 years. 7,781 Mosquitos built and in operation for 16 years. 15,000 Ju88's built and in operation for 15 years. ( Operation dates as test flight to retirement ). So all three aircraft operated over a similar time span with the Pe2 and Mossie lasting into the mid 1950's.


Overall dimensions of the three aircraft were very similar, differing by just a few feet. What surprised me was that the Mosquito had the highest Gross Weight at 18,100 lbs, Ju88 at 16,980 lbs and the Pe2 at 16,639 lbs.


Overall, the Pe2 came out the worst against both the Mossie and Ju88. Payload was almost as much as the Mossie ( Pe2 3,520 lbs, Mossie 4,000 lbs, Ju88 5,511 lbs ), but range was half at only 721 mls, compared to the Ju88 1,310 mls and Mossie 1,500 mls. Horse power was significantly lower for the Pe2 and Ju88 at about 1,200HP each engine compared to the Mossie with 1,710HP.


Service ceiling for the Pe2 and Ju88 were similar at 28,870 ft for the Pe2 and 29,800 ft for the Ju88. The Mosquito is listed as having a ceiling of 37,000 ft. The Mosquito wins on top speed as you would expect having an additional 1,000 HP against its competitors. Mossie was 415mph at 28,000 ft. Ju88 was 317mph at 15,600 ft and the Pe2 360mph ( no height specified ).


Crew numbers were two for the Mossie ( I presume the Bomber version used the Navigator as bomb aimer ), the Pe2 had three crew, and the Ju88 had four.


Both the Ju88 and Mossie were very adaptable, which must be a big part in their success. I don't know if any captured Ju88's were flown in simulated combat with Mossies, but it is likely. I haven't seen any RAF figures for the Ju88 v Mossie, 'though the RAF operated captured German aircraft to assess their abilities. Someone somewhere will probably have the figures, the RAF Museum would be a good guess.


On paper, the Mosquito does look like it comes out top in most respects, but there is much more to fighting a war than statistics. Pilot training also has a big impact on an aircrafts ability, and that is an area that let the Luftwaffe down, by not sending experienced pilots to training schools to pass on their knowledge. The only real results would be to study all the various combat reports from all the various missions flown by both sides to assess the results of those missions. Only then would you have a good indication of which type performed its various tasks to the best.



Link to post
Share on other sites

If you like Aggressive look, then I guess you like the Bristol Beaufighter, and with four cannons and six machine guns, with room to fit radar a true killing machine. Arguably the first true night fighter, but also highly effective as a ship killer, flying alongside the the mosquito in the Banff strike wing...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else that hasn't been mentioned in any X v's Y debate is cost in both money and manpower to produce. I have no information on the man hours needed to build each machine, nor the cost, but it would be interesting to know how long it took to build each type.


One interesting feature of the Mossie was the lack of traditional oleos for the landing gear. From what I remember reading somewhere, is that machined and chromed struts, together with the O ring seals, were more complex/expensive to produce, so the Mosquito used compressing rubber blocks in the legs to absorb the landing load. I'm sure someone in the know can confirm this or let me know my imagination has run away from me and is currently making daisy chains in Never Never land???



Link to post
Share on other sites

I 've always liked the Westland Whirlwind and am sure we'd all agree that with proper engine development it could have been a real killer. Shame it never made it. I agree with Steve about things looking the part, but do have time for aesthetics. The Jug is a beast compared to the P51. The Ju 88 does have something very special about it and I'd like to have seen one of those tankbuster Henschels there used to be a Frog/Revell model of - was it the Hs 129??? My ultimate remains the Stuka. Can't explain why - but seeing the one on show at Hendon always makes me smile.




Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 12 years later...

Hi everyone.  One big difference between the JU88 and DH Mosquito was their respective roles as fighters. The Mosquito here stands out for its superior speed and nimbleness, while the JU88 was primarily a bomber, or associated roles. Even when configured for the fighter role (4 x 20mm plus 4 x .303s) it could still carry and additional 1 000lbs of bombs in the bomb bay, or 8 x rockets fired from under the wing hardpoints. Another big difference was in manning - Whereas the JU88 needed four crew, the Mosquito only needed 2. The need for defensive gunners for the JU88 was not necessary for the Mosquito, as it outpaced nearly any fighter at the time, including the Spitfire. Also, as a high altitude recon plane it had no rival. Their role as Pathfinders for the heavies night bombing campaign was a decisive factor. Now, I'm not saying the JU88 is not a great plane. It is, and could be seen to be more versatile (but limited as well).  It was used as the "general workhorse" and did everything asked of it well. In the nightfighter role a better comparison would be to a Beaufighter - that could be an interesting discussion! However this means two planes to match it's capability. Overall, I still think the Mosquito pips the JU88 by enough for me to give my vote to the Mosquito.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...