# Martin Baltimore



## Wildcat (Oct 18, 2007)

Gents, the Martin Baltimore to me, is one of the great unknown aircraft of WWII. It served successfully in the MTO with 5 different airforces with 1575 a/c being produced. Questions, How come it was never used as a light bomber or recce a/c over continental Europe? Was it deemed incapable of operating in that theatre, if the similar Boston could, surely the Baltimore would have been able to. Was there simply no need for another light bomber, taking into account the multitude of a/c already fulfilling that role (Boston, mossie plus all the fighter bombers etc). Why no interest from the USAAF?
Sorry lots of questions, but after reading a couple of books about RAAF squadrons that flew the type in the desert, I've had a bit of interest in this a/c which doesn't seem to get talked about much.


Some pics of 454 sqn RAAF Baltimores.
pics 1,2 and 3 from Australian War Memorial: One of the world's great museums rest unknown


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 18, 2007)

Sorry didn't know those two pics were so freakin HUGE!!!


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Oct 18, 2007)

Sorry that I don't have an answer to your question, but the pics are cool. Any info on the one above the harbor? Curious to where that is.....

I see in your avatar that you show the Vultee Vengeance. For the most part I heard that they weren't very good aircraft but that your fellow countryman made good use of them in Burma.


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 18, 2007)

Marshall_Stack said:


> Sorry that I don't have an answer to your question, but the pics are cool. Any info on the one above the harbor? Curious to where that is.....


Somewhere over Italy, couldn't give you the exact city sorry mate.



Marshall_Stack said:


> I see in your avatar that you show the Vultee Vengeance. For the most part I heard that they weren't very good aircraft but that your fellow countryman made good use of them in Burma.



The Vengeance was an excellent dive bomber that proved highly effective in pin point attacks against Japanese positions. The RAF and Indian AF used them to good effect in Burma. The a/c in my sig belongs to 24 sqn RAAF, who along with 3 other vengeance squadrons operated successfully, although relatively shorlty, in New Guinea.


----------



## machine shop tom (Oct 18, 2007)

The Baltimore was derived from the Maryland, which was a fast bomber for it's generation, but was cramped and inadequately armed. The Baltimore had a deeper fuselage, more powerful engines, and somewhat more armament. It was still cramped due to the very narrow fuselage. 

The Baltimore certainly performed a valuable service to the allied cause, principally in the MTO. Their exploits are overshadowed in part because few, if any were used by the U.S. However, they were in the thick of the fighting from Tunisia and Sicily to Italy and the Balkans.

tom


----------



## maxs75 (Oct 19, 2007)

Baltimore not in Europe? I believe that was a way to simplfy logistics. I believe the same reason for USAAF did not use B-25 in UK. Probably another model of twin engine bomber was not needed along with Blenheim, Mitchell, Boston, Mosquito, Ventura, B-26, A-20...
I read once tha PBM Mariner was liked by RAF but for the same reason it was not used in UK and not acquired by RAF in bigger numbers.

Baltimore used by 5 Air Forces: RAF, RAAF, SAAF and who else?

Max


----------



## Graeme (Oct 19, 2007)

maxs75 said:


> Baltimore used by 5 Air Forces: RAF, RAAF, SAAF and who else?Max



I've got Australia, France, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, South Africa and Turkey.
('Combat Aircraft of World War Two' by Weal and Barker)

Very nice photos Wildcat.


----------



## maxs75 (Oct 19, 2007)

You are so right!

Thanks


----------



## william g moore jr (Aug 29, 2011)

Great photos!! My dad was an RAF ferry command pilot and delivered many Baltimore's to the African theater. Vicar taught him some of the A-30 secrets to survival. Seems when rigged with long range tanks, they were a real pain to get airborne. If it wasn't lined up when the tail wheel came up you chopped the throttles or got ready to ground loop. The delivery stats were not good. Seems they had a hard time getting out of Nassau.

Dad was going to write a book about them, but never got past the preliminary info stages.


----------



## Sydhuey (Aug 31, 2011)

Info I have found on the Baltimore said the main reason it was not used as much as the Boston in particular was its handling, take off and landing and was not as maneuverable as the Boston, one report I read the pilot quoted what a handfull it was when fully loaded, while Boston crews constantly praise the Boston for its handling and Maneuverability also as with Bostons tail defensive armament not up to scratch with early examples(Boston as well) rectified with late Mk IIIA's with power turret with 2 x .50's also later marks of Boston able to carry up to 4000lbs bomb load. An old friend of the family (now gone) flew Baltimores with 454 Sqn RAAF and liked them said they were a huge improvment over Blenheims and Marylands but surpased by later B-25's and A-20's (he latter flew B-26's which he didn't like)


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 31, 2011)

Not one I have heard much about. Thanks for the info. Another one was the Ventura which was actively used in the Pacific, but has been largely forgotten about.


----------



## stug3 (Apr 28, 2013)

A bomb-aimer of No 223 Squadron, RAF checks over his bomb sight in Martin Baltimore aircraft `N-NAN’. The open bomb-bay doors give a glimpse of general purpose 250-pounder bombs.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 4, 2013)

> Another one was the Ventura which was actively used in the Pacific, but has been largely forgotten about.



Not here it hasn't. Although this example is one of only a handful of PV-1/B-34s to survive.


----------



## againstthebar (May 6, 2014)

stug3 said:


> A bomb-aimer of No 223 Squadron, RAF checks over his bomb sight in Martin Baltimore aircraft `N-NANï¿½. The open bomb-bay doors give a glimpse of general purpose 250-pounder bombs.



Great picture and thanks very much *from the son of a 223 Squadron air-gunner 1942-44*!

Do you have access to any more photographs? Elsewhere in this thread I read of the tendency of this plane to nose-over incidents on take-off....

I've just tried to attach a picture of the results of just such an incident! 7th April 1943: crew (dad included) climbed out unhurt and took photographs. Starboard wheel was sent up through the engine nacelle....

Unfortunately the image = 1.18 MB which is apparently above the site-limit! Shame. Perhaps some advice?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (May 6, 2014)

againstthebar said:


> Unfortunately the image = 1.18 MB which is apparently above the site-limit! Shame. Perhaps some advice?



Just resize the picture down to the 800 picels in the width before posting here. In the way the file size can be reduced to the decent one.

And by the way the site allows to post images up to 5MB.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 6, 2014)

Very cool, welcome aboard!

I hope you can post the pics.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 6, 2014)

> The Baltimore certainly performed a valuable service to the allied cause, principally in the MTO. Their exploits are overshadowed in part because few, if any were used by the U.S. However, they were in the thick of the fighting from Tunisia and Sicily to Italy and the Balkans.



A fact often overlooked is that the Baltimore was designed for the British. It was developed to a British requirement; the USA never used it in service. Orders were placed for the RAF following the passing of the Lend Lease Bill.

Yep, post away; would be nice to see photos.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 6, 2014)

It actually was ordered by the joint Anglo-French Purchasing Commission and was to be built at a French financed building in Middle River. All the ones ordered by the US were canceled, though a number of them supplied via Lend-Lease were assigned USAAF serial numbers. Only one ever saw service of any kind with the US and that was as a test aircraft the US Navy acquired from the RAF in 1946. 

from _Martin Aircraft 1909-1960 _by Breihan/Piet/Mason


----------



## nuuumannn (May 6, 2014)

Yep, Bill. Like the maryland, once the French were knocked out of the war, the Baltimores went to the UK.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 6, 2015)

Royal Air Force Martin Model 187 "Baltimore" Bomber, Nov. 1941






Royal Air Force Martin Model 187 "Baltimore" Bomber Formation. January, 1943


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 6, 2015)

I recall receiving a number of plastic toy airplanes as a young kid. All were treasured but one had a peculiar shape that didn't seem to correspond to anything I'd ever seen in film or literature. I assumed it was some toy manufacturers idea of a generic twin engine bomber that had no counterpart in reality. One day, I came across a photo of the Maryland (or maybe Baltimore) and finally recognized my toy for what it was. 

Of course, the thread's topic is the Baltimore and not the Maryland, but it may be worth citing perhaps one of the Baltimore's progenitor Maryland's finest moments when as a FAA ('training'?) A/C it was pressed into service as a recce aircraft:

Martin Maryland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

"_On 22 May 1941, a Maryland of 771 Naval Air Squadron based at Hatston in the Orkney Islands, reported that the German battleship Bismarck had left Bergen, confirming that she was breaking-out into the Atlantic._"


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 7, 2015)




----------



## Wildcat (Jan 8, 2015)

Nice shots, Baltimore's are cool!


----------



## yulzari (Jan 8, 2015)

I am probably a bit dim but what advantage did the Baltimore have over the Maryland other than the defensive turret firepower?It was no faster, cruised a bit slower and carried the same war load but over a shorter range with a slower rate of climb. The empty weight of a Baltimore is about the same as a loaded Maryland on the same wing area


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 8, 2015)

A bit bigger bomb-load, the Marylanders rarely using the 'rate" 2000lb load, in fact one source (Joe Baugher's website) says "Could carry two 624-pounds or eight 116-pound bombs and six 7.5-mm machine guns" for the Marylander. 

Might be hard to believe but the view from cockpit may be better too. 

If you are using Wiki for a source you might want to check the empty vs loaded weights against the load. The listed 514 imp gallons of fuel is about 3800lbs while the difference between "empty weight" and "normal Loaded" is 4711 lbs. 911 lb isn't much for oil, crew, ammo (possibly guns) AND the bombs. Baltimore had over 7000lbs of "payload" to divvy up.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 8, 2015)

my data give a max bomb bay load for the Maryland I of 567 kg (In British service) and 907 kg for the Maryland II, the fuel load was 2337 liters, the difference empty max weight is around 2.7 tons for both the variants. i've no data under hand for the Baltimore, that for Marylan came from my research for the 1941 top 3 allied bombers thread. (i'm at good point probably for this week end i give my choice on that thread)


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jan 9, 2015)

...plus if you rolled up on a bunch of chicks in a Baltimore, they'd know what's up, as opposed to a Maryland. 8) Just sayin' playas...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (Jan 9, 2015)




----------



## Graeme (Jan 27, 2015)

Saw this at the Shrine last week. A Baltimore model crafted from perspex during WW2.

Shrine of Remembrance | Melbourne - Home

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jan 27, 2015)

That's neat. Thanks for posting.


----------



## Wildcat (Jan 28, 2015)

Very cool!


----------



## Peter Collins (Feb 2, 2016)

Hello. I was wondering if anyone can confirm that this is a Martin Baltimore? The photo was taken in North Africa in 1943 I believe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 2, 2016)

Serial numbers AG685 to AG999 were assigned to Baltimores so your photos aircraft fits in there.



Geo


----------



## Wurger (Feb 2, 2016)

In my opinion.. yes, she is.


----------



## Peter Collins (Feb 3, 2016)

Thanks very much. Do you know if it is possible to identify the Squadron from the Serial number? I have a number of photos found amongst the belongings of a recently passed family member and am trying to piece together the story of the pilot in the photo (who apprently was killed in the later stages of the war). Any information or advice gratefully received.


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 3, 2016)

Serial numbers AG685-734 were Baltimore Mk.Is. These were a part of 400 Baltimores delivered to Britain. The Martin numbers were 1427-1836.


Geo

_EDIT: _4 RAF squadrons flew the Mk.I, all in North Africa; 55, 69, 203 and 223sqns.


----------



## Peter Collins (Feb 4, 2016)

Thank you. While using that information I discovered a Airfix model advert for the Martin Baltimore with RAF markings for 223 Sqn RAF. The Sqn code was 'X' and the serial number AG724. So it looks as if this is the same Squadron as the photo I have. Getting closer....


----------



## Wurger (Feb 4, 2016)

As memo serves the code letter wasn't the squadron code but it was an individual code marking for a plane. The AG724 was marked with the "P" code one but not with the "X".


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 4, 2016)

Many, but not all photos I've seen of desert Baltimores had only the aircraft letter and not the squadron codes. 


Geo


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 4, 2016)

This is the earliest I can find Baltimores in the Middle East/Mediterranean





Cat A) Serviceable
Cat B) Serviceable within 14 days

Geo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Collins (Feb 8, 2016)

I had assumed that my photo shows a 223 Sqn Baltimore and the X was a Squadron designation. As you can see one of the examples of the markings below is a 223 Sqn aircraft and the X is also an option.
The decals in this kit provide markings for four examples:

Baltimore, FW418, 13 Sqn, RAF
Baltimore, FW287, 55 Sqn, RAF, Celina, Italy, 1944
Baltimore, FA564, Coastal Command
Baltimore, AG724, 223 Sqn, RAF, 1942


----------



## Wurger (Feb 8, 2016)

I see. But I have seen a couple of other pictures of Baltomores marked with the "X" while being of different serials but belonged to different squadrons.Anyway the bombers used in the North Africa / the MTO, didn't wear a squadron code letters that consisted of two signs but not of one. If your assuming would be correct , all kites of the 223 Squadron had to wear the same letter at the same time. But there are other images of different Baltimores that were marked with different code letters. For instance the AG724.


----------

