# Best American Medium Bomber



## carman1877 (Nov 11, 2009)

Which do you think was the best American medium bomber, and why? based on payload, defensive and offensive armament, advancements, engines, etc. 

B-26 or the B-25?


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 11, 2009)

B-26 - It may have been the most dangerous to fly, but it had the best combat record for an aircraft of it's type...that says something. Besides it was my favorite Snap-Tite model to build as a kid!


----------



## drgondog (Nov 11, 2009)

I favor the Marauder. It was one of the toughest bombers built, had a very low loss rate in combat in the toughest theatres, had very good defensive firepower, good range and heavy bomb load.

The B-25 arguably was more versatile as it showed in the pacific - but there was no mission it performed after Pappy Gunn's modifications in the PTO that the B-26 could not have performed in a similar way. The B-25 was also more forgiving to the lower time pilot.


----------



## Thorlifter (Nov 12, 2009)

If your making me pick between the two, I'd go for the B-26 after modifications to make it more stable in take off's and landings.

However, there isn't too much wrong with the B-25. From what I have read, it was a dream to fly.

But, I think the A-26 Invader was a better plane than both of these. It was 65 mph faster than the Maurader and 75 mph faster than the Mitchell. Payload was the same as the B-25 and heavier than the B-26. Also, the A-26B, with 8 .50 cals in the nose, gave it a configuration of 14 .50 cals firing forward, similar to the B-25H to use as an attack plane.


----------



## Juha (Nov 12, 2009)

B-26 for me for the reasons already stated.

On Invader, Kenney of US 5th AF didn't like it because of the engines restricted the view of the pilots during low level attacks, so he chose to continue the use of A-20s on those missions and declined the offer to get A-26s as their replacement.

Juha


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 12, 2009)

B-25.

It was a fine plane and with it's forgiving nature, was a perfect fit for an airforce that had to quickly mass produce pilots to fly it.


----------



## twoeagles (Nov 12, 2009)

My opinion may be colored by the fact the B-25 was my very first warbird 36 years ago (44-86734), but it had unrivalled versatility, many successive models with upgrades driven by the changing needs in theater, relatively easy to maintain in the field, and was used by Army Air Corps, Navy, and Marines, with a life that extended well into the 1950's, not to mention civilian use to this day. If the question was which was the 'hotter' performer, then of course the Martin was tops. The R-2600's were reliable and strong, but I will always be in awe of the R-2800 for unmitigated gloves off power.


----------



## Messy1 (Nov 12, 2009)

I voted for the B-26, but agree with the Thor on the A-26 being the best by a wide margin. It was used clear into the 60's IIRC. I feel it should be on the poll as well.


----------



## davebender (Nov 12, 2009)

That's certainly true but the A-26 was a newer design. We should be comparing the A-20 with the B-25 and B-26.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 12, 2009)

i'm agree A-26 it's sure best of these but it's also late (came over two years late)


----------



## renrich (Nov 12, 2009)

A20 was a light bomber. between the B26 and B25, I would vote for the B26. A nice edge in speed and better armed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 13, 2009)

I am going for the B-25.

If the Americans had produced only one bomber I think they would have been better off with the B-25. While the B-25 could not do some off the things the B-26 could I am not so sure that an all B-26 force could have done all the missions the B-25s did, or at least, done some of them as well.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 13, 2009)

Agree that with B-25 only US would do just fine. 

What tasks B-26 carried off were out of B-25's capabilities?


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 13, 2009)

afaik the B-26 have a bit more fuel load (max 2500 versus 1830, this is for ferry, i think around 1500 vs 1315 with bomb bay free for bombs ).


----------



## beaupower32 (Nov 13, 2009)

I went with the B-25 Mitchell. Here is some info via Wikipedia. 

*B-25 *
The first version of the B-25 delivered. No prototypes were ordered. The first nine aircraft were built with constant dihedral angle. Due to low stability, the wing was redesigned so that the dihedral was eliminated on the outboard section. (Number made: 24.) 
*B-25A *
Version of the B-25 modified to make it combat ready; additions included self-sealing fuel tanks, crew armor, and an improved tail gunner station. No changes were made in the armament. Re-designated obsolete (RB-25A designation) in 1942. (Number made: 40.) 
*B-25B* 
Rear turret deleted; manned dorsal and remotely-operated ventral turrets added, each with a pair of .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns. The ventral turret was retractable, but the increased drag still reduced the cruise speed by 30 mph (48 km/h). 23 were delivered to the RAF as the Mitchell Mk I. The Doolittle Raiders flew B-25Bs on their famous mission. (Number made: 120.) 
*B-25C *
Improved version of the B-25B: powerplants upgraded from Wright R-2600-9 radials to R-2600-13s; de-icing and anti-icing equipment added; the navigator received a sighting blister; nose armament was increased to two .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns, one fixed and one flexible. The B-25C model was the first mass-produced B-25 version; it was also used in the United Kingdom (as the Mitchell II), in Canada, the People's Republic of China, the Netherlands, and the Soviet Union. First mass-produced B-25 model. (Number made: 1,625.) 
*B-25D *
Identical to the B-25C, the only difference was that the B-25D was made in Kansas City, Kansas, whereas the B-25C was made in Inglewood, California. First flew on 3 January 1942. (Number made: 2,290.) 
*XB-25E *
Single B-25C modified to test de-icing and anti-icing equipment that circulated exhaust from the engines in chambers in the leading and trailing edges and empennage. The aircraft was tested for almost two years, beginning in 1942; while the system proved extremely effective, no production models were built that used it prior to the end of World War II. Many prop aircraft today use the XB-25E system. (Number made: 1, converted.) 
*XB-25F-A *
Modified B-25C that tested the use of insulated electrical de-icing coils mounted inside the wing and empennage leading edges as a de-icing system. The hot air de-icing system tested on the XB-25E was more practical. (Number made: 1, converted.) 
*XB-25G *
Modified B-25C in which the transparent nose was replaced by a solid one carrying two fixed .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns and a 75 mm (2.95 in) M4 cannon, then the largest weapon ever carried on an American bomber. (Number made: 1, converted.) 
*B-25G *
To satisfy the dire need for ground-attack and strafing aircraft, the B-25G was made following the success of the prototype XB-25G. The production model featured increased armor and a greater fuel supply than the XB-25G. One B-25G was passed to the British, who gave it the name Mitchell II that had been used for the B-25C. (Number made: 420.) 
*B-25H *
improved version of the B-25G. It featured two additional fixed .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns in the nose and four in fuselage-mounted pods; the heavy M4 cannon was replaced by a lighter 75 mm (2.95 in) T13E1. (Number made: 1,000; number left flying in the world: 1.) 
*B-25J *
The last production model of the B-25, often called a cross between the B-25C and the B-25H. It had a transparent nose, but many of the delivered aircraft were modified to have a solid nose. Most of its 14–18 machine guns were forward-facing for strafing missions. 316 were delivered to the Royal Air Force as the Mitchell III. (Number made: 4,318.) 
*CB-25J *
Utility transport version. 
*VB-25J *
A number of B-25s were converted for use as staff and VIP transports. Henry H. Arnold and Dwight D. Eisenhower both used converted B-25Js as their personal transports. 

Trainer variants
Most models of the B-25 were used at some point as training aircraft.

*TB-25D *
Originally designated AT-24A (Advanced Trainer, Model 24, Version A). Trainer modification of B-25D. In total, 60 AT-24s were built. 
*TB-25G* 
Originally designated AT-24B. Trainer modification of B-25G. 
*TB-25C* 
Originally designated AT-24C. Trainer modification of B-25C. 
*TB-25J* 
Originally designated AT-24D. Trainer modification of B-25J. Another 600 B-25Js were modified after the war. 
*TB-25K* 
Hughes E1 fire-control radar trainer (Hughes). (Number made: 117.) 
*TB-25L* 
Hayes pilot-trainer conversion. (Number made: 90.) 
*TB-25M *
Hughes E5 fire-control radar trainer. (Number made: 40.) 
*TB-25N* 
Hayes navigator-trainer conversion. (Number made: 47.) 
U.S. Navy / U.S. Marine Corps variants

*PBJ-1C *
Similar to the B-25C for the US Navy; often fitted with airborne search radar and used in the anti-submarine role. 
*PBJ-1D *
Similar to the B-25D for the US Navy and US Marine Corps. Differed in having a single .50 in (12.7 mm) machine gun in the tail turret and beam gun positions similar to the B-25H. Often fitted with airborne search radar and used in the anti-submarine role. 
*PBJ-1G *
US Navy/US Marine Corps designation for the B-25G 
*PBJ-1H* 
US Navy/US Marine Corps designation for the B-25H 
*PBJ-1J *
US Navy designation for the B-25J-NC (Blocks -1 through -35) with improvements in radio and other equipment. Often fitted with "package guns" and wingtip search radar for the anti-shipping/anti-submarine role. 


The B-25 had a very large and widely used airframe. Many mods were implemented to it to adapt to whatever the mission might require. Besides, have you ever seen a B-26 take off from a Aircraft Carrier, lol, I think not.


----------



## davebender (Nov 13, 2009)

> If the Americans had produced only one bomber I think they would have been better off with the B-25.


Perhaps so but that eliminates the daylight bombing of Germany. So we can discard that idea. 

The B-17 carried a rather small payload compared to other heavy bombers like the Lancaster and He-177. One could argue for using the B-17 for performing all medium and heavy level bombing missions. Low level CAS missions would go to the A-20. No need for either the B-25 or the B-26.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 13, 2009)

I ment one medium bomber.

The A-20 is an attack plane, totally lacking in range as has been pointed out in another thread.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 14, 2009)

To me it's the A-20 ...
But given the limited choice, I voted for the B-26. I think it was the better bomber but the B-25 was the better aircraft. 


Kris


----------



## riacrato (Nov 14, 2009)

I give my vote to the B-25 for being the easier, safer plane and basically getting the same job done just as well.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 14, 2009)

davebender said:


> Perhaps so but that eliminates the daylight bombing of Germany. So we can discard that idea.
> 
> The B-17 carried a rather small payload compared to other heavy bombers like the Lancaster and He-177. One could argue for using the B-17 for performing all medium and heavy level bombing missions. Low level CAS missions would go to the A-20. No need for either the B-25 or the B-26.



Sorry for not being more accurate, should've said "One MEDIUM bomber type", not just "one bomber type.


----------

