# best medium bomber



## elmilitaro (Mar 21, 2006)

Hey guys, what do you think was the best medium bomber used in WW2.


----------



## Glider (Mar 21, 2006)

Do217


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2006)

A-26.....


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 21, 2006)

A 26 is a light bomber IMHO and prefer the much maligned Martin B26


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 21, 2006)

Had this before, haven't we....I think the B-25 won.........


----------



## Glider (Mar 21, 2006)

By a default


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> A 26 is a light bomber IMHO and prefer the much maligned Martin B26



Light Bomber? A B-25 weighed 36,000 lbs at take off and carried only 3 - 4000- pounds of bombs. The martin B-26G weighed 38,000 pounds and still had a bomb load of 4000 pounds. The A-26C had a take off weight of 35,000 pounds and was later up-ed to 43,000 pounds and carried 6000 pounds of ordnance internally and later 2000 pounds externally (A-26K)

There's nothing light about the A-26!


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 21, 2006)

Glider said:


> Do217


same goes for me


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 21, 2006)

Well without a doubt late 44 the A26 was the tool but..............


----------



## Magister (Mar 21, 2006)

The A-26 had a 4,000lb internal bomb capacity in addition to a 2,000lb external bomb/rocket capacity.

Specification of Douglas A-26B-60-DL Invader:

Powerplant:
Two Pratt Whitney R-2800-79 air-cooled radials, each rated at 2000 hp for takeoff, 2350 hp with water injection.
Performance:
Maximum speed 355 mph at 15,000 feet. Cruising speed 284 mph. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 8.1 minutes. Service ceiling 22,100 feet. Normal range 1400 miles, maximum range 3200 miles.
Dimensions:
Wingspan 70 feet 0 inches, length 50 feet 8 inches, height 18 feet 6 inches, wing area 540 square feet.
Weights:
22,362 pounds empty, 26,000 pounds loaded, 41,800 pounds maximum.
Armament:
Eight forward-firing 0.50-inch machine guns in nose. Three 0.50-inch machine guns mounted in each of the outer wing panels. Two 0.50-inch machine guns in remotely-controlled dorsal turret. Two 0.50-inch machine guns in remotely-controlled ventral turret. An internal bomb load of 4000 pounds could be carried. Maximum total bomb load of 6000 pounds. 


The "K" model was the B-26 "Counter Invader" which was used in Vietnam. On short trips it could carry a maximum of 12,000lbs of bombs.

Specification of On Mark B-26K Counter Invader:

Powerplant:
Two Pratt Whitney R-2800-52W air-cooled radials, each rated at 2500 hp for takeoff and 1750 hp at 15,000 feet.
Performance:
Maximum speed 323 mph at 15,000 feet, 291 mph at sea level. Cruising speed 169 mph. Stalling speed 114 mph. Initial climb rate 2050 feet per minute. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 8.1 minutes. Service ceiling 28,600 feet. Combat radius 700 miles with 3518 pound bomb load. Normal range 1480 miles, maximum ferry range 2700 miles.
Dimensions:
Wingspan 71 feet 6 inches (over wing-tip tanks), length 51 feet 7 3/16 inches, height 19 feet 0 inches, wing area 540 square feet.
Weights:
25,130 pounds empty, 37,000 pounds loaded, 39,250 pounds maximum.
Armament:
Eight forward-firing 0.50-inch machine guns in nose. Six forward-firing 0.50-inch machine guns in the wings. An internal bomb load of 4000 pounds could be carried. Up to 8000 pounds could be carried on the underwing pylons. Maximum total bomb load of 12,000 pounds.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2006)

Again, nothing light about the A-26, good info Magister!


----------



## Glider (Mar 22, 2006)

Do217M around 22,000lb empty and max 8,800 lb bombs. Thats medium, and one of the reasons like it so much when compared to the B25/B26.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 22, 2006)

i wouldn't count the A-26, for the simple fact it's designation makes it an attack aircraft, which is what it is, we did it last time so i think we should do it again, split this into two catagories, strategic bombers like the wimpy and tactical/other bombers like the A-26, agreed?

if we do do that, the wimpy gets my vote for the strategic...........


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 22, 2006)

did that do any better than the Spades, the Junkers and the Flying pencils in the strategic mission?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i wouldn't count the A-26, for the simple fact it's designation makes it an attack aircraft, which is what it is, we did it last time so i think we should do it again, split this into two catagories, strategic bombers like the wimpy and tactical/other bombers like the A-26, agreed?
> 
> if we do do that, the wimpy gets my vote for the strategic...........



The designation doesn't make the aircraft - it was changed to B-26 after the Martin B-26 was retired and the USAF was established in 1947. The A-26 accomplished the same roles as the B-25 and B-26, the "A" meant nothing..... 

Wimpy attack bomber? It was shown the A-26 was a monster and carried a hell of a lot more punch than the B-26 and most models of the B-25.


As Magister gave accuracy to this - "The "K" model was the B-26 "Counter Invader" which was used in Vietnam. On short trips it could carry a maximum of 12,000lbs of bombs." In WW2, 6000 pounds of bombs, far more than ANY "Medium" Bomber.

The A-26 was also very advanced and very fast...

Again, far from being "light" and "wimpy."


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 22, 2006)

I've always liked the A-26 and it definitely packed a punch, so it gets my vote.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 22, 2006)

I'll go with the Junker JU88 C model with the MGs and cannons in the nose. It could attack its target and ward off any frontal attack with its powerful nose armament.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 22, 2006)

> Wimpy attack bomber?



when the friggin' hell did i put the wimpy forward as an attack bomber? i put it forward was the best medium strategic, the A-26 was much more a tactical medium..........


----------



## Twitch (Mar 22, 2006)

B-25 with Ju 88 a close 2nd due to the fact that is was so versitile.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > Wimpy attack bomber?
> 
> 
> 
> when the friggin' hell did i put the wimpy forward as an attack bomber? i put it forward was the best medium strategic, the A-26 was much more a tactical medium..........



you're right, my wrong  The way i read it I thought you were implying the A(B)-26 was "wimpy."


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2006)

A-26 as well for me...


----------



## book1182 (Mar 22, 2006)

American = B-26 ruggedness,bomb load, speed
German = JU-88 only German bomber I would have wanted to be in
British = Bristol Beaufort if you can call it a medium bomber
Japan = Neil/Sally???

The British and Japanese only really had heavy and light bombers. What would you consider medium bombers for these two nations? Mosquito of course in the bomber configuration. What other ones though?


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 22, 2006)

the japs eat sushi so a heavy to them is a light bomber in the west


----------



## plan_D (Mar 22, 2006)

The British only had heavy and light bombers? The Wellington, Whitley and Manchester were all medium bombers compared to the real heavy bombers of the war, like the Lancaster and Halifax. The only homegrown heavy bombers in the RAF were the Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling. There's probably more medium than heavy bombers, actually.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2006)

and the mossie is never really counted as a medium bomber, as she was rarely used in the strategic role, when the RAF think of bombers they only think of strategic bombing, attack bombers like the mossie are considdered ground attack/light strike, not as bombers in the way the RAF thinks of them............

The RAF did have a large number of mediums as they tried out different designs, including as pD has mentioned, the wimpy, manchester, whitley, hampden (and family) plus a few others.........

and the beaufighter wasn't a medium bomber...........


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 23, 2006)

it was kinda like a zestorer right?


----------



## v2 (Mar 23, 2006)

book1182 said:


> American = B-26 ruggedness,bomb load, speed
> German = JU-88 only German bomber I would have wanted to be in
> British = Bristol Beaufort if you can call it a medium bomber
> Japan = Neil/Sally???
> ...



Polish- PZL 37B "Łoś"


----------



## davparlr (Mar 23, 2006)

No contest here. For gross weights from 20 to 40k and bomb loads of 4 to 6K, A/B-26 Invader out distances the rest. It was powerful, fast with good range and payload. The deal maker on this selection is the fact that the A/B-26 maintained effective opertional status (even in the US military) for another 20 years or so, fighting in Korea, Cuba and Vietnam. I don't think any other contestant can stand up to that record. In addition, it looked mean! Mosquito barely makes it into this list weightwise but, oh, what a plane.

Assignment of classification by user ("A" not "B") is not relevant. Note "F" in F-117.

Note on the much maligned B-26 Maruder. Another great bomber with a good survival record. With high wingload, it was ahead or its time and cause training problems. Todays military pilots would have had no problems. If I had to fly in WWII in a medium bomber, that would be my list.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 23, 2006)

Gen. Kenney of the FEAF had a low opinion of the A26 because of its pilot visibility problems. He felt that the B25 had a better chance of destroying the target.

The B26 had a good combat record but it had its problems. Its production was stopped early in the war and in the 12AF, B25's began to replace the B26 groups.

My vote is for the B25. Fought in the war from start to finish (for the AAF)in all theaters.


----------



## Glider (Mar 23, 2006)

Can anyone tell me why they don't like the Do217. Compared to the B25 and B26 it went faster, further, higher with a larger bombload and served well against overwhelming air superiority until the end of the war. It also was more verstile than either of these planes carrying guided missiles and serving as a nightfighter.
Even compared to the A26 its performance was close with similar top speeds and payload plus of course it was in service about three years earlier.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 24, 2006)

Can't say too much about the maruder. However, the B-25, while used and was effective in many missions, it did not last long as a war fighter. I do not believe it even served in Korea. It did last many years as a trainer. Its contribution to WWII was much greater than the A/B-26 and I will concede it was the best medium bomber for the war era, but as an absolute best medium bomber of WWII, the A/B-26 proved itself by it's longevity and performance as stated before. It was 70 mph faster than the B-25 and had a greater range with 1000 lbs larger bomb load. That more than makes up for some reduced visibility I would think.

The research I did on the Do217 indicated that the only model that was faster than the A-26 was the high altitude reconnaissance version, which, I believe, had a separately driven fuselage mounted supercharger and was probably was stripped and could not be classified as a bomber. In all other aspects, the A-26 was at least equivalent. See http://ww2aircraft.co.uk/Do217.html


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 24, 2006)

the 217 was in service before the a-26


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2006)

that's what glider said.............

and are we not separating strategic bombers from tactical?


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 24, 2006)

yeah but they cant help mentioning it


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 24, 2006)

Gen Kenneys opinions of the A26 were framed by his pilots. They said that flying at low altitudes required the pilots to be able to see their targets and obstacles.

There is no way the A26 could have performed the low level strafing and skip bombing the B25's did.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 24, 2006)

whatever it is, the Do-217 was a great plane usually forgotten...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Gen Kenneys opinions of the A26 were framed by his pilots. They said that flying at low altitudes required the pilots to be able to see their targets and obstacles.
> 
> There is no way the A26 could have performed the low level strafing and skip bombing the B25's did.



I've been in the cockpit of both aircraft and the visibility is about the same, I give the B-25 points to be able to carry the 75mm cannon, the A-26s cockpit just needed a re-design and once that was completed it was more than capable and eventually replaced all B-25s, 26s, and A-20s.

Operators in the ETO had little complaints about the aircraft...

Here's the real story....

"The A-26 entered combat testing in mid 1944, when 4 of the aircraft assigned to the Fifth Air Force began operating in the Southwest Pacific. Lt. Gen. George C. Kenney, Commanding General of the Far East Air Forces, grounded the planes after less than 175 hours of total flying time and stated shortly afterwards, "We do not want the A-26 under any circumstances as a replacement for anything." Ironically, about 4 years before, as a colonel in charge of the Wright Field Production Division and a strong proponent of attack aviation, Kenney had strongly urged the aircraft's development. General Kenney's statement and his mid 1944 decision to ground the planes appeared justified. A-26 production had slipped badly; the B-25s and A-20s that the A-26s would replace had proven satisfactory; and *the canopy of available A-26s was poorly designed. A new canopy was needed to improve visibility. Without it, pilots could not safely fly the formations required for low level tactics. While the Wright Field Production Division agreed that the A-26 could not replace current types of light and medium bombers, Maj. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Commanding General of the Ninth Air Force, was much less critical than General Kenney. The few A-26s introduced in the European theater towards the end of the summer were performing well. Undoubtedly, the aircraft's marginal visibility needed attention. But new productions were seldom free of problems, and General Vandenberg thought the A-26 was a satisfactory replacement for the B-26s and A-20s in Europe. *
Regardless of the mixed reports generated by the performance of the early A-26 (A-26As or A-26Bs), the Army Air Forces' plans to re-equip all B-25, B-26, and A-20 units with A-26s were reaffirmed in November 1944. In December, 2 more contracts were approved, and in April 1945 both of the new agreements were supplemented, bringing to 4,000 the total of new A-26s ordered since mid 1944. However, the German surrender on 8 May 1945 prompted a re evaluation of military requirements. Production which had been scheduled to increase to 400 A-26s per month was cut to 150. The procurement orders of 1944 and 1945 were canceled. 

*Douglas adopted several long standing suggestions by General Arnold: engineering personnel at Long Beach established closer liaison with the Tulsa plant; extra well qualified personnel were placed in the 2 plants; and the number of stations in the production lines was raised. These production changes facilitated modifications of the aircraft, which were designed to improve its effectiveness. An all purpose gun nose was devised and the faulty nose landing gear redesigned. A-26s (redesignated as A-26Cs) that came off the production lines after January 1945 featured an enlarged, raised canopy which provided increased visibility. *


----------



## Glider (Mar 24, 2006)

Its suprising that with all the experience of the war behind them, the designers should make such a mistake over the visibility. Which is unquestionably one of the most critial items needed for any warplane of that era.
One question you might be able to awnser FJ, is do you know how much could the gunner see through the sight? I have always had a doubt over sights of that nature remembering that the most important job of a gunner is seeing the enemy coming in so the pilot can take evasive action.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 24, 2006)

> whatever it is, the Do-217 was a great plane usually forgotten...



That is true. I didn't know anything about it until I did a little research. Even my German aircraft book did not have it. It is an impressive aircraft although a little funky looking-like all Dos.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

Glider said:


> Its suprising that with all the experience of the war behind them, the designers should make such a mistake over the visibility. Which is unquestionably one of the most critial items needed for any warplane of that era.
> One question you might be able to awnser FJ, is do you know how much could the gunner see through the sight? I have always had a doubt over sights of that nature remembering that the most important job of a gunner is seeing the enemy coming in so the pilot can take evasive action.



Good question glider - I've seen B-26s with the turrets removed and upward visibility was excellent, but from what I remember that all that could be seen from the gunner/ navigator's position. I'm wondering if control of the turrets was possible from the cockpit?!?


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 24, 2006)

The pilots position in the B25 was forward of the engine nacelles. In the A26, the pilot is astride the nacelle.

At 250mph 100 feet over the "deck", you sure need that extra margine of visibility.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The pilots position in the B25 was forward of the engine nacelles. In the A26, the pilot is astride the nacelle.
> 
> At 250mph 100 feet over the "deck", you sure need that extra margine of visibility.



The B-25 offered better visibility but the area restricted by the A-26s engines isn't a show stopper at low altitude - you could still see the lower 2 and 10 o'clock positions - important when landing - its at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions where the most obstruction is apparent.

But in essence almost every aircraft has a blind spot where visibility is limited...


----------



## plan_D (Mar 24, 2006)

I saw a programme a while back that was uncovering an A-26 wreckage. They discovered it was actually two A-26s , and the programme went on to discuss what had happened. In the end, they figured that these aircraft had crashed and become locked together in mid-air, then gone down. 

It then went on to discuss the visibility problems because of the engines, and quite a few pilots complained about formation flying and said it was quite hazardous. But I don't recall mention anything of low level flying ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I saw a programme a while back that was uncovering an A-26 wreckage. They discovered it was actually two A-26s , and the programme went on to discuss what had happened. In the end, they figured that these aircraft had crashed and become locked together in mid-air, then gone down.
> 
> It then went on to discuss the visibility problems because of the engines, and quite a few pilots complained about formation flying and said it was quite hazardous. But I don't recall mention anything of low level flying ...



I could see the formation hazard, especially if each aircraft weren't stepped down....


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 24, 2006)

Formation accidents are a natural hazard of formation flying turn your head a bit a 2 degree turn and its over especially in high performance a/c . We had a couple of Jags hit each other once both went down the crews managed to eject and later at the bar someone asked how much the Jags were worth one of the Jag guys said f*** all now


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> Formation accidents are a natural hazard of formation flying turn your head a bit a 2 degree turn and its over especially in high performance a/c . We had a couple of Jags hit each other once both went down the crews managed to eject and later at the bar someone asked how much the Jags were worth one of the Jag guys said f*** all now



There have numerous times that we have been doing formation flying and almost hit another aircraft. I dont know how many times I had to yell out "Break Left, Break Left, Break Left!"


----------



## Glider (Mar 27, 2006)

I was always taught to keep my eyes on the one your formating on, never ever take your eyes off it and trust the lead.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

Yeah but when the lead gets lost, then you get lost, if you are not paying attention.!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2006)

Glider said:


> I was always taught to keep my eyes on the one your formating on, never ever take your eyes off it and trust the lead.



I've done formation flying with light aircraft - we "align" the nose and main landing gear and close in on that (which will put you at a 45 degree angle) Then you continually watch the lead...I've been in a 5 plane formation about 15 feet apart doing this.

In the jet its similar as you take a mental picture of where you should be if you're #2. You continually change power settings to stay within the right distace and sometimes use a little pitch to slow down, but as you mention glider, never take your eyes off the leader....


----------



## Glider (Mar 27, 2006)

We never had the luxury of adjusting the power, a touch of airbrake which needed care as they tended to pop wide open. For obvious reasons we couldn't get as close as we had to be able to manoever away if the speeds got out of sync.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2006)

Glider said:


> We never had the luxury of adjusting the power, a touch of airbrake which needed care as they tended to pop wide open. For obvious reasons we couldn't get as close as we had to be able to manoever away if the speeds got out of sync.


 That I could understand - flying formation is a great challange, I could imagine doing it in a sailplane is 10x more challenging, my hats off to you!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

With helicopters we line up on the main rotor hub so that you can watch the stabilator rise or fall and can better see the aircraft bank left or right.


----------



## Daytonbob (Mar 7, 2008)

44-35437...retired in 1962....The Corvette of the WW2 Bombers


----------



## fly boy (Mar 7, 2008)

i would go for the b-26 becasue in the war it had like six 50cals in the front


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2008)

That is how you decide what is the best?


----------



## fly boy (Mar 7, 2008)

well in my point of view b-26s was one of the best bombers used in italy over the war


----------



## Elvis (Mar 10, 2008)

Daytonbob said:


> 44-35437...retired in 1962....The Corvette of the WW2 Bombers


Bob,

If that's a B-26, someone else is looking for information on it.
Maybe you have some info to help them out?



Elvis


----------



## river (Jul 22, 2009)

Hi,

Sorry to dig up an old thread... but I do have a severe soft spot for medium bombers.

I love both the A26 Invader and the B26 Marauder aircraft. So, I am torn between them.

I looked through some of my old books to check them out, and felt a tinge of sadness to see a picture taken of an A26 just after it collected an AA shell. With most of one wing missing and bomb bay doors open, it's starting to roll. Then I saw a pic of a B26 which also caught AA. Most of the port wing is missing and you can see the starboard airleron up as far as it will go to try and compensate, but I fear that plane was doomed also.

river


----------



## davparlr (Jul 22, 2009)

FLYBOYJ never take your eyes off the leader....[/QUOTE said:


> Let me restate that in clearer language NEVER TAKE YOUR EYES OFF THE LEADER....


----------



## Glider (Jul 22, 2009)

davparlr said:


> Let me restate that in clearer language NEVER TAKE YOUR EYES OFF THE LEADER....



Can I add IF YOU DO LOSE THE LEAD, BUG OUT IMMEDIATELY AND DON'T LOOK FOR THEM.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 22, 2009)

Glider said:


> Can I add IF YOU DO LOSE THE LEAD, BUG OUT IMMEDIATELY AND DON'T LOOK FOR THEM.



Amen, brother. At least don't look until you feel you have establish a safe separation distance.


----------



## A-26pilotson (Apr 1, 2016)

My dad was a pilot with the 97th Bombardment Squadron, 47th Bombardment Group in WWII. He flew combat missions in A-20s and A-26s. He also trained on B-26. He did not like the B-26 at all because of its high stall speed and hot landing requirements. He absolutely loved the A-26 especially in low level bombing and strafing runs of trains and transportation hubs in the PO Valley..

A lot has to do with the pilots in those days. At the height of the war the Army Air Force Flight schools were pumping out pilots like mad. Lots of air time and experience was the exception not the rule. My dad was running a milling machine in a small Illinois town one minute and flying A-20s the next. In 1942 he was all of 20 years old, having graduated high school at 15. By the time he was 23 he was flying the hottest medium bomber in the war.

The B-26 marauder had a very high accident rate due to pilot error. The A-20 was very nimble but a bit slow. The A-26 was fast and good at low levels with high bomb capacities and tactical armament.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 1, 2016)

A-26pilotson said:


> My dad was a pilot with the 97th Bombardment Squadron, 47th Bombardment Group in WWII. He flew combat missions in A-20s and A-26s. He also trained on B-26. He did not like the B-26 at all because of its high stall speed and hot landing requirements. He absolutely loved the A-26 especially in low level bombing and strafing runs of trains and transportation hubs in the PO Valley..
> 
> A lot has to do with the pilots in those days. At the height of the war the Army Air Force Flight schools were pumping out pilots like mad. Lots of air time and experience was the exception not the rule. My dad was running a milling machine in a small Illinois town one minute and flying A-20s the next. In 1942 he was all of 20 years old, having graduated high school at 15. By the time he was 23 he was flying the hottest medium bomber in the war.
> 
> The B-26 marauder had a very high accident rate due to pilot error. The A-20 was very nimble but a bit slow. The A-26 was fast and good at low levels with high bomb capacities and tactical armament.


I admit that I am not a fan of the A26. It was big and the guns in the nose more impressive than effective in Europe because low altitude flying over Europe was a very dangerous pastime. You could get away with it in the Pacific where the AA fire was less effective but not really in Europe.
Also I don't like the defensive set up. Periscopes give a very limited view of what is going on outside and the chances of not seeing what shoots you down are magnified.


----------



## Airframes (Apr 2, 2016)

RAF 2 Group were keen to test the A-26 Invader, as they'd had good experience with, and liked, the Douglas predecessor, the Boston.
However, when one was tested, the dorsal turret came adrift in flight, embedding itself in the fin, and, apart from that rather inauspicious event, it was found that handling and stability were poor, compared to the Boston (Boston MkIII - the MkIV was not liked by crews, being slower, heavier and not as maouvreable), and control of the remote gun barbettes, apart from being cumbersome, was not suited to the 2 Group role in the skies of northern Europe.
Doubtless the loss of the turret had a great bearing on the decision _not _to re-equip with the Invader, but I often wonder how it would have _actually _performed, especially in the low-level operations which were a hallmark of this Group.
Would have been interesting to see pics, today, of the type in RAF squadron service, and no doubt it woud provide some interesting modelling subjects.


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 3, 2016)

The RAF was worried about the pilots view when flying with a single pilot. Just looking at pictures of the A26 it does look to me that the pilots view was an afterthought.


----------



## Timppa (Apr 4, 2016)

DH Mosquito.

The only aircraft the Finns actually planned to reverse engineered, with DB605 engines.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 4, 2016)

Flying (and liking) the B-26 Marauder did seem to be separated by experience. My father escaped from training command in 1943 and flew B-26s, then wrangled his way into fighters. That said, he liked the B-26C very much and he also flew the A/B-26 Invader in Korea. He also had a lot of time in the A-20. When he went to school on the B-26 in Del Rio, TX he had 1750 hours.

Post WWII, he acted as IP to other 355th FG fighter pilots who had zero twin engine time, with the 355th B-26 hack.


----------



## Gixxerman (Apr 6, 2016)

Some great aircraft mentioned, personally I like the B26, A/B26, the Mossie.
One plane that seems over-looked is the Ju188 (which became the Ju388), it seems to have impressive performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 6, 2016)

Tu-2 is a contender IMO. 
It was very sleek in prototype form, powered by V-12 AM-37 engines. Pleas note the intakes for burried raiators, at it was in vogue in the era in Soviet Union:


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 6, 2016)

Tomo, I agree about the Tu-2, but personally, I would lean towards the Pe-2 for my choice.

My other picks for best medium would be the Ju88 for Germany, the G4M for Japan and the B-25 for the U.S.

A few that held real potential, would be the LeO 451 of France and the PZL.37 of Poland.

I didn't pick a good medium for Britain, as they had a few contenders for this position and my opinion would be for the Mosquito.

Italy had a few candidates, but nothing that I would say qualifies for the "best".

Reactions: Like Like:
 1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 6, 2016)

Well, my math, when it comes down to VVS bombers, is like this: Il-2 < Pe-2 < Tu-2  Whomever carries biggest bomb load, preferably as fast as possible.
Yes, I know Il-2 was not really a bomb truck, but still.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 6, 2016)

IL-2 was in no way, shape or form a *medium* bomber 

Granted definitions changed some as the war went on and even changed a bit from country to country but IL-2s could NOT perform many of the missions that other medium bombers did on routine. 
Medium bombers are NOT just big attack planes.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 6, 2016)

Of course, the Il-2 was not the medium bomber, sorry if I've sent that message aloft 
Just that I find it too bad that Tu-2 was not produced in 1941, in series, with AM-38 on board.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 6, 2016)

I look at versatility of the airframe when making the consideration

Factors like bombload and speed are major criteria, but how much use can the service get from that particular series?

Look at the Ju88 for example...everything from a level bomber, to a dive-bomber, heavy fighter, night fighter, ground attack gunship, torpedo bomber and so on. It provided a versitile "jack-of-all-trades" platform to which it performed well in each role. This puts the Ju88 above similar Luftwaffe types.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 6, 2016)

Well, you can have a "most versatile" airframe but that doesn't mean it was the best at any one role even if it was a good (or great) value for the using air force. 

The A-26 was pretty much the best "medium" bomber of the war but it came late which limited it's actual contribution. It also means that being a later design it had laminar flow wings, double slotted flaps and other "advantages" than older aircraft did not have. 

Considerations should not only include MAX bomb load but how far the particular plane could carry a "normal" bomb load. 
Speed is not only top speed but cruise speeds. Is the plane fast enough to escape trouble (mostly) or at least fast enough to make interception difficult (few planes were fast enough to make interception _impossible, _Mosquito fans can please put down the rocks/bricks).

Defensive armament kind of depends on speed, if you are very fast you don't need defensive guns to keep losses down, if you are slow you need all the guns you can get and it still won't be enough. Middle speeds _may _be able to get away with middling armament. Now we have to define "middle speeds" 

Russian planes generally had crap for defensive armament. Were they fast enough to get away with it or did the Russians accept loss rates that Western nations would not? 
German bombers were also more than bit lacking in defensive armament as a general rule. And no, they really weren't fast enough in the common models to get away with it while carrying a worthwhile combination of bombs/fuel. 

British didn't really have medium bombers of their own, they bought them from the Americans. The Whitley was a twin engine heavy bomber or night bomber. The Blenheim was a light bomber. The Hampden and Wellington had no place in daylight operations unless well out to sea 

British bought the Baltimore and Ventura to fill the "medium" bomber role. They didn't work in western Europe.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 7, 2016)

It is really unfortunate that A-26 was outfitted with 3rd best 'general' version of the redoutable R-2800, so it did not capitalized with next-gen aerodynamics as much as it was really possible. It also never received the 'C' series of the R-2800, as did (in different versions) the P-47, F4U, F7F and F8F. Let alone the 'E' series (like latest F4U and F8F versions), for Korean war...

The Tu-2 also showed a great promise with AM 39 engine, among other things it was doing 400 mph.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 7, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> It is really unfortunate that A-26 was outfitted with 3rd best 'general' version of the redoutable R-2800, so it did not capitalized with next-gen aerodynamics as much as it was really possible. It also never received the 'C' series of the R-2800, as did (in different versions) the P-47, F4U, F7F and F8F. Let alone the 'E' series (like latest F4U and F8F versions), for Korean war...
> 
> The Tu-2 also showed a great promise with AM 39 engine, among other things it was doing 400 mph.



Tomo - IMO, the A/B-26 never had a mission which required the 'C' series engine as the war was winding down and jet aircraft were clearly going to make sure that any a/c equipped with the 'C' series was not going to fly high enough or fast enough to warrant post production modifications. 

Post WWII future operations for the Invader clearly point to the validity of the decision to not 're-engine' that great airplane. Post war my father had a P-61B night fighter squadron at Hamilton Field and had the opportunity to fly a P-61C (that never replaced the B) with the turbo supercharged R-2800-C. He liked the airplane very much but opined that the P-82 night fighter was overall superior to the P-61C. I suspect AAF planners felt the same way as the P-51C never got a production order and only a couple of F-15s came into existence as Recon version.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2016)

For most of the uses intended for the A-26 the "better" versions of the R-2800 might not have really done much for mission capability. 
Two stage superchargers certainly do nothing for planes flying at strafing altitudes. 
For the nightfighter variant or perhaps for a recon version they might have been useful.
The B-26Ks used in Vie Nam used "C" series engines. Same engines used in C-118a cargo planes ( DC-6 freighter).
A-26s in WW II got water injection from the B-45 block on. 2350hp WER at low (very low) altitude.

If you want a high altitude "medium" bomber then the two stage systems make sense but bombing accuracy goes to pot due to the altitude. The US had several large high altitude medium bombers "in the works" and decided it didn't want any of them. 
The Martin XB-27 was a version of the Martin B-26 with a pressurized cockpit (?) and turbocharged engines but was not proceed with (built). 
The North American XB-28 saw two prototypes built, Pressure cabin and turbo R-2800s






First flew 2 1/2 months before the A-26.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 7, 2016)

A-26pilotson said:


> He did not like the B-26 at all because of its high stall speed and hot landing requirements.



I'm being repetitive to my previous post somewhere but I gotta put it in. It is my opinion that there was nothing significantly wrong with the original small wing B-26 but rather a failure of the AAF to anticipate the future and modify training to adapt pilots to high speed, high wing load, aircraft, a position they were going to be forced into en masse within 5-7 years. Instead, the AAF modified the aircraft, reducing speed and adding weight which effectively reduce top speed by over 30 mph and cruise speed by over 40 mph. Certainly not a insignificant performance impact. The Navy also fell into this trap, even more so due to constraints of carrier operations, to the extent that they had no aircraft available to compete in the air superiority role in Korea. The early B-26 were nearly as fast as a Zero/F4F and cruised at a speed where the Zero was very hard to maneuver. Little wonder the Japanese thought the B-26s at Midway were very fast and difficult to bring down, and that was with a torpedo hanging underneath.

Today, many AF pilots, including bomber pilots, are trained in aircraft that fly final around 180 mph!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 8, 2016)

Ok, so it seems to me that the definition of "best" bomber is the fastest, then, not what it could offer it's air force in the way of application - in other words "more bang for your buck".

If we want to go for the "best" medium bomber in that regard, then I would suggest the Ar234.

If we want to talk range, perhaps the Yer-2 is the champion (3, 418 mile range)

The A-26 was certainly a hotrod, but the B-26 and A-20 were right up there, the B-26 proving to be a little more versatile (including dropping torpedoes in it's repertoire, as Dave mentioned).

So the A-26's max. speed was rated at 355 mph, but what was it's speed with max. internal load and stores on the hardpoints?

The A-20 was quite fast for it's time, too, being rated at 339 mph although it's max. load was much shorter than the A-26, this is still impressive.

The Pe-2 was capable of 360mph and was difficult for Luftwaffe fighters to catch, it carried 3,000 lbs max. and was nearly 40 mph faster than the Tu-2 but carried much less than the Tu-2's 3,300 lb. internal/5,000 lb. external max.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2016)

Dave, the Pe-2 with M-105/VK-105 engine was good for 320 mph, give or take. Same with seris produced Tu-2.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2016)

It is not speed but actually survivability while carrying a useful bomb load over a useful range.

Speed _may _mean survivability if it is high enough, 290mph, for instance isn't enough better than 270mph to really help if the fighters can do 360mph.

The Russian and German bombers not only had crap for defensive armament (generally) but had real problems with range and bomb loads and even bomb loads and speed. 

External stores are always going to cut into speed and range due to drag.

The A-26 may have been able to do 355mph with 4000lbs worth of bombs inside the bomb bay, Four 1000lb bombs, speed may depend a bit on fuel load. 



The Pe-2 was only going to hit 360mph in a dive, at least the M-105 powered ones. Usual max speed was more like 330mph give or take a few mph depending on exact version. Clean the PE-2 was limited to six 100kg (220lb) bombs, four in the fuselage and one in each nacelle. Operational range was just under 800 miles, again depending on exact version, production batch and factory. There were external racks for four 250kg bombs or two 500kg bombs but max bomb load is given as 1000kg which means if you put the big bombs outside the internal bays are empty. Hanging the bombs on the outside does what to the speed and range? 

The Pe-2 did a lot of good work for the Russians but try plugging it into some other countries missions? It is short on bomb load for long distance missions and and long distance for the Pe-2 is rather short compared to many other planes. Want to try using Pe-2s in the Pacific or even the Med? 

To be fair the A-26 once it got the water injection engines had as much power in one engine as the Pe-2 had in both. There is only so much you can do with under 1200hp engines. 

The TU-2 and the Ju-88/Ju-188 have the same bomb load problem. Small internal bay/s with the majority of the load carried outside if you get anywhere near the listed maximum loads. TU-2 is a bit better. Often listed as having 1500kg of bombs inside (six 250kg bombs?) 

Nobody was zipping around with these bombers at max speed and going very far. Accelerating from cruise speeds to max speeds was always going to take a while.


----------



## Timppa (Apr 8, 2016)

Any other contender - except the "wooden wonder"- could have taken a 1,200 mile round trip from UK to Berlin, with a 4,000 lb bomb, in about 4 hours. ?
Twice in one night.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2016)

drgondog said:


> Tomo - IMO, the A/B-26 never had a mission which required the 'C' series engine as the war was winding down and jet aircraft were clearly going to make sure that any a/c equipped with the 'C' series was not going to fly high enough or fast enough to warrant post production modifications.
> 
> Post WWII future operations for the Invader clearly point to the validity of the decision to not 're-engine' that great airplane. Post war my father had a P-61B night fighter squadron at Hamilton Field and had the opportunity to fly a P-61C (that never replaced the B) with the turbo supercharged R-2800-C. He liked the airplane very much but opined that the P-82 night fighter was overall superior to the P-61C. I suspect AAF planners felt the same way as the P-51C never got a production order and only a couple of F-15s came into existence as Recon version.



Bill,
I did not suggested that we make a (night) fighter from the A-26, though people were doing much wiereder stuff in ww2 
The C series of the R-2800 does not improve just the hi-alt performance, but all-altitude, including take off power. Interstingly enough, AAF did not have any jet aircraft of the 'attack' class with in pipeline. 



Shortround6 said:


> For most of the uses intended for the A-26 the "better" versions of the R-2800 might not have really done much for mission capability.
> Two stage superchargers certainly do nothing for planes flying at strafing altitudes.
> For the nightfighter variant or perhaps for a recon version they might have been useful.
> The B-26Ks used in Vie Nam used "C" series engines. Same engines used in C-118a cargo planes ( DC-6 freighter).
> A-26s in WW II got water injection from the B-45 block on. 2350hp WER at low (very low) altitude..



Te thread is about medium bombers, so if we're going to think of the attack aircraft (doing mostly strafing and low-level bombing) to be competitive in medium bomber role (all-altitude bombing, bomb aimer in lieu of nose gunpack) the installation engines better suited for hi-alts is not out of it's place. The water injection will help even more with 2-stage engine on board.



> If you want a high altitude "medium" bomber then the two stage systems make sense but bombing accuracy goes to pot due to the altitude. The US had several large high altitude medium bombers "in the works" and decided it didn't want any of them.
> The Martin XB-27 was a version of the Martin B-26 with a pressurized cockpit (?) and turbocharged engines but was not proceed with (built).
> The North American XB-28 saw two prototypes built, Pressure cabin and turbo R-2800s
> 
> First flew 2 1/2 months before the A-26.



Looks like the Mosquitoes with 2-stage engines were pretty useful & accurate, even when bombing from 25000 ft?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> It is not speed but actually survivability while carrying a useful bomb load over a useful range.
> Speed _may _mean survivability if it is high enough, 290mph, for instance isn't enough better than 270mph to really help if the fighters can do 360mph.
> The Russian and German bombers not only had crap for defensive armament (generally) but had real problems with range and bomb loads and even bomb loads and speed.
> External stores are always going to cut into speed and range due to drag.
> The A-26 may have been able to do 355mph with 4000lbs worth of bombs inside the bomb bay, Four 1000lb bombs, speed may depend a bit on fuel load.



This is painting the Soviet and German bombers with too wide a brush, lumping the 'worst' and best together. Just because Pe-2 and Ju-88 did not have had that a good bomb bay does not mean that Tu-2 and Do-217 were in the same position. Same goes for range.
The usability of A-26's defensive armament was one fighter per defending bomber, since there was only one rear gunner. Vs. 2-3 gunners on German and Sovier bombers. Granted, the A-26 have had power turret with twin HMGs, but it's defensive firepower was less than half of what was carried on the B-25 and B-26.



> The TU-2 and the Ju-88/Ju-188 have the same bomb load problem. Small internal bay/s with the majority of the load carried outside if you get anywhere near the listed maximum loads. TU-2 is a bit better. Often listed as having 1500kg of bombs inside (six 250kg bombs?)
> Nobody was zipping around with these bombers at max speed and going very far. Accelerating from cruise speeds to max speeds was always going to take a while.



1500 kg - 3300 lbs. Tu-2 is head and shoulders when we compare bomb bay capacities with Ju-88 family, bar the 'big belly' models. It is also much faster when a worthwhile bomb load is carried.
The Tu-2 carried max of ~700-800 US gals of fuel internally, range (not radius, of course) of ~1250 miles.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2016)

Thank you for the reminder on the Do-217. A good bomb bay for a medium bomber. There are still trade offs between bomb load and fuel/range though like many other bombers. "Normal" bomb load would be about 2000kg, eight 250kg bombs or four 500kg bombs. The max internal load was two 1000kg bombs and two 250kg bombs. Americans often used odd ball combinations also in order to get impressive totals 
Max load of 4000kg requires not only external storage but limits on fuel?? Range on normal internal fuel was 1200-1300 mile with 2500kg internal bomb load? Good but not great. 
The DO 217 with BMW engines was fast but not fast enough, around 320 at 18,000ft?? Cruise was 258mph?? economical cruise 245mph?? 

And the defensive armament was crap. 4 man crew had five gun positions to man and since we really don't want the pilot leaving his seat in order to man a gun that leaves 1 or 2 very busy gunners. (OK nose gun is handled by bomb aimer leaving 2 men for 4 guns). Granted you can shoot at two incoming fighters but only if they are in the fields of fire of the appropriate guns. 2 fighters coming in together a little high and just off the tail can only be engaged by one gun. Likewise if the fighters approach from below and behind. 
The A-26 may not have had the best defensive gun set up but it was way ahead of the Do-217. 
You also have the power turret question. How much more effective is a gun in a power turret than manually aimed guns? Granted the sights can screw things up a bit but is the 13mm gun in a Do 217 even in a full power turret or just power traverse? And was it gross traverse under power and fine aiming being done manually? 





Belly 13mm gun was manual and the 7.9 out the side windows were manual. 

Tu-2 had a few issues with it's defensive guns although being a bit faster it didn't have quite the need.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2016)

Do 217E was faster than 480 km/h only when weihting less than 14.5 t, ie. bomb of under 1000 kg, not too much of fuel. With 1500 kg of bombs internally, fuel just in wing tanks (15.5 t weight) it was good for 460 km/h on 2 x 1300 PS, max power of the BMW 801A in 2nd S/C gear.
Going with BMW 801D/ML and DB 603A improves performance, up to 560 km/h is claimed with later.

The Tu-2 was fast for a gun-armed bomber, but it will need fighter escort in order to survive in a contested airspace. Comments about Do 217E - the big dependance on weight to 'make' speed - certainly apply in a good measure to the Tu-2 too, even though the Tu-2 was lighter by some 2-2.5 tons empty, and a bit smaller. 
As a pure bomb truck,the Do 217 was better, with 3000 kg of internal bomb load + 2960 L of fuel already in 1941.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 10, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Looks like the Mosquitoes with 2-stage engines were pretty useful & accurate, even when bombing from 25000 ft?



These two stage bombers were generally accurate using systems such as Oboe.

Tests with the Nordern and Mk XIV bomb sights didn't give brilliant results for bombing at high altitude. 

Much better results were achieved at low levels.

Low level raids had the advantage of reducing the risk of detection by radar.


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 11, 2016)

Were any Mosquitos fitted with the Stabilised Automatic Bomb Sight as used by 617 Sqn.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> Were any Mosquitos fitted with the Stabilised Automatic Bomb Sight as used by 617 Sqn.



Not to my knowledge.

I have copies of trials with the MkXIV and Nordern sights, as well as reports on the bombing installations of teh Mosquito which included the MkIX sight.


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 11, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Not to my knowledge.
> 
> I have copies of trials with the MkXIV and Nordern sights, as well as reports on the bombing installations of teh Mosquito which included the MkIX sight.



I asked because a nose through Google images shows the Bombardier/bomb aimer sitting knees either side of the Nordensight looking down into the sight with the computer cabinets to the right. We're Mossies roomy enough to allow that or were the Nordensights modified to allow a prone or crouching position.


----------



## Airframes (Apr 11, 2016)

I doubt there'd be room in the nose of a Mossie for a Norden sight. Also, American aircraft supplied to 'foreign powers' were not allowed to have the Norden sight installed - types such as the B-24 and B-25 supplied to the RAF, for example,were normally supplied with the Sperry sight, an American version of the MkXIV sight, so it's highly unlikely that RAF aircraft would have the Norden.
The MkXIV was considered almost as good in some cases, and 'as good' in certain circumstances, to the Norden, and had the advantage that the straight and level flying time required on the bomb run was a lot less than the Norden.
The SABS was used _only_ by 617 Sqn, and then, as far as I know, only in the Lancaster.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2016)

Airframes said:


> I doubt there'd be room in the nose of a Mossie for a Norden sight.



It was trialled in the Mosquito.

The Legendary Avro 6 Bomb Carrier for the Mosquito


----------



## Glider (Apr 11, 2016)

People get hung up on the max speed of aircraft including the bombers but the cruising speed was far more important to a bomber. The higher the cruising speed the less the chance of interception. Once intercepted the higher max speed was of some help but personally I would rather not be intercepted. 
Its also worth remembering that the higher max speed was of little help even when intercepted if you stick to close formation, as flying in formation slows you down considerably.

The A26 defensive arrangement is in my mind very poor as periscopes limit your vision and there is a good chance you would never see the incoming fighters.

Norden bombsights were very good but not a huge leap forward in performance and again the tactics used by the USAAF didn't help. Normally everyone dropped on the lead bomber so everything depended on the one person. The skill of the one person probably had as much to do with accuracy as the bomb sight they used. Plus, if everyone drops on the lead bomber then you automatically have a huge scatter, the size of the formation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2016)

Glider said:


> Norden bombsights were very good but not a huge leap forward in performance and again the tactics used by the USAAF didn't help. Normally everyone dropped on the lead bomber so everything depended on the one person. The skill of the one person probably had as much to do with accuracy as the bomb sight they used. Plus, if everyone drops on the lead bomber then you automatically have a huge scatter, the size of the formation.



The tactics were adopted because having each aircraft line up and bomb individually increased the vulnerability of the bombers.

Bombing in formation allowed them to maintain the overlapping fields of fire that was thought to give maximum protection for the bombers.

Of course, it didn't help against flak. Mind you, a couple of hundred aircraft lining up on teh same track flying straight and steady for several minutes one after another would no doubt have provided the flak batteries time to hone in on their targets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Apr 12, 2016)

should be noted that the squadron bomber on lead bombardier, max one BG lead. The multi-Group and Wing were too spread out in many cases to chance 50+ bombers bombing on one individual


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 12, 2016)

Glider said:


> People get hung up on the max speed of aircraft including the bombers but the cruising speed was far more important to a bomber. The higher the cruising speed the less the chance of interception. Once intercepted the higher max speed was of some help but personally I would rather not be intercepted.
> Its also worth remembering that the higher max speed was of little help even when intercepted if you stick to close formation, as flying in formation slows you down considerably.



The higher speed ( max, but indeed the cruising speed) does help against Flak. Not just that it compounds the errors made by Flak crews, but also means that on the faster aircraft there will be less of shells fired.



> The A26 defensive arrangement is in my mind very poor as periscopes limit your vision and there is a good chance you would never see the incoming fighters.



The B-25 and B-26 were with far greater gun firepower, with realistic possibility that more than one gunner engages the same target. Those bombers were slow by mid-and late-war standards, however.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 12, 2016)

The trouble with a lot of these defensive armament layouts is that they didn't work out in practice very well (or at least as well as intended/hoped). 
The A-26 arrangement may not have worked as hoped but the periscopes were supposed to have a 70 degree field of view. Certainly not great but perhaps not as bad as some other gun positions. Many of the belly guns on a variety of bombers had a rather limited field of view, which is why some of them had small windows or a series of small windows on the sides of the plane to give the gunner a better view even if the gun/s he was using wouldn't point to those directions. 
You also have the fire co-ordination problem. Can the gunners in two or more positions actually talk to each other? as in how good were the intercoms in various nations aircraft? You also have only a few seconds to agree on a common target before the firing opportunity may be gone. 
The two turrets on the A-26 actually have a small cross over area, upper turret will fire 5 degrees below horizontal and the lower turret will fire 5 degrees above horizontal. Assuming no aircraft structure is in the way. 5 degrees is roughly 25ft at 100yds, 50 feet at 200yds, 75 ft at 300yds and so on. Not a big area of overlap but a beam attack at nearly the same altitude as the A-26 _may _be the most dangerous area for an attacker to be. 
Most Turrets using periscopes were failures but most of them were earlier in timing than the A-26, at least a generation older? I don't know how much the A-26 system and the B-29 system had in common. 
You also have the whole powered gun turret vs manual powered gun mount (very few people really used "hand held" guns. 
The Russians found that the operator of the dorsal 12.7mm MG on the Pe-2 had a lot of difficulty even getting the gun to point at a 45 degree angle to the fuselage with the early mount due to the slipstream pushing on the barrel/gas tube. Later mounts/"turrets" used a wind-vane "counterbalance" to try to equalize the air pressure (drag) as the gun mount traversed. Most manually powered mounts having sever problems trying to point sideways. American beam guns having a bit of an advantage as the fuselage was big enough for the gunner to stand upright (couched/) and use leg muscles and body weight to help maneuver the gun in a way that a seated gunner could not (some mounts may allow gunner to use leg muscles to traverse seat and gun?) 
For the Americans the B-25 and B-26 had 4-6 _defensive _guns (not counting flexible nose gun) in all but the earliest versions but never more than 4 guns in powered mounts in any version. Hundreds of B-25C/Ds had the lower turret taken out and a single .50 mounted in the tail, beam gun/s added and a single .50 firing through the floor where the turret used to be. These were done both as a rework in the US and at at least one overseas modification center. B-26s went through 3 different tail mounts with twin .50s after the first version/s had single guns. First twin mount was not powered. 
Some Japanese bombers used a dorsal turret powered in traverse by bicycle pedals. Legs have more strength than arms but compared to electric motors or hydraulics? 
Point of all this is that a simple gun count does not really reflect the defensive capability of the aircraft. Even large numbers of guns does not grant immunity and even B-29s could not defend themselves 100% of the time. But the goal is to get teh losses somewhere near acceptable. Slow and few guns was the worst.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 12, 2016)

B-25s and B-26s were actually pretty zippy in the early versions but _NOT _zippy enough. Since you can't keep up max speed for more than a few minutes (and it takes a few minutes at max throttle to accelerate from cruising speed to max speed so time at max speed is really limited) and running at high speed can really suck down the fuel it really isn't an option for any but short range flights or attacks using a minimum of bombs. 
Speed at "max continuous" is much more realistic and for most bombers that was not fast enough for protection. Early small wing B-26 could do 1000 miles with a 3000lb bomb load at 265mph. Top speed was supposed to be 313mph. Max continuous power (2400rpm and about 42in MAP) for a pair of R-2800 engines could be close to 400 gallon an hour. Military power (2700rpm and 52in MAP was 540gal per hour or 9 gallons a minute). Cutting the speed back to around 245-250mph at 10-15,000ft cut the fuel burn down to just under 230gal an hour and add hundreds of miles of range or allow more bombs to be carried the same distance. 
Medium bombers had a wide variety of attack profiles ( bomb load, speed, distance and altitude) making judgments of a few data points difficult. American bombers tended to stick with the same or similar power rated engines for their production runs while adding large amounts of equipment. Some late model American bombers were rated for smaller bomb loads than early aircraft despite gains of thousands of pounds of gross weight. The weight gain had gone into guns and armor and more fuel. In many cases the big difference in guns was not additional defensive guns but the addition of offensive guns. Late model B-26s gaining five .50 cal offensive guns and B-25s are well known as guns ships. Some A-26s had Fourteen offensive .50 cal guns and late model A-20s had six. 
They paid for it in weight and drag.
 I would note however that most American medium bombers could also play the outside bomb load game with all but the Martin B-26 being rated for an extra 2000lbs in outside bomb storage. Off course outside bomb racks really do a number on speed and range.


----------



## Hiromachi (Apr 13, 2016)

I wonder why nobody mentioned Ki-67 "Hiryu". While it was classified by Japanese as heavy bomber, in western nomenclature it would perfectly fit a medium bomber due to weight and dimensions as well as bombload.
It doesnt have such a high bombload as some of the other aircraft (though Japanese bombers most often had lesser bombloads than comparable American or other designs) but it could also carry a torpedo and did that usually at nearly double range of the comparable medium bombers produced by other countries.

It also had a very good maneuverability, sustained rate of climb, was well protected and a unlike many older Japanese bombers, this one was very well armed. 

Not sure if its the best medium bomber, not even sure that we can find one to be the best medium bomber since many aircraft excelled in their roles in some theaters but in others they would fail thus seeking for ultimate and overall best medium bomber may be somewhat hard. But still Ki-67 could be a strong competitor here.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 13, 2016)

The Ki-67 was good airplane but it wasn't quite there. It was fast but not fast enough, especially considering it's time frame. Going into action in the summer of 1944 means it is up against F6Fs, F4Us, P-47s and P-51s. 
It had good power and decent passive protection but it's low gross weight compared to the big American 3 (and the German Ju-88 and Do 217) means something got left out. Details are not the best in western sources so they may be in error. Rear of the plane is protected (in most cases) by one 20mm gun in powered dorsal turret and three 12.7mm guns in manual mounts. Some late production planes got a twin tail mount and few (?) got a single 20mm in the tail. Much better than earlier Japanese bombers but a little short compared to the American bombers. 
Bomb load is closer to the A-20 than the American big 3. However the lighter weight of the Ki-67 and it's slightly bigger wing means it had a much better ceiling. How much of an advantage that was in 1944/45 I don't know. 

Performance with torpedo is a bit of an unknown (as is performance of American bombers with torpedoes) as the torpedo is carried outside and most drawings show bomb bay doors removed but not always.






The A-26 was supposed to be able to carry two torpedoes but I don't think they were ever used operationally, a bit like the pilots manual discussing the 75mm cannon in the nose of the A-26. It was planned and tested but never mass produced or fitted to service aircraft. 

It _might _have been possible to modify the Ki-67 to handle much greater bomb loads but the Japanese still needed more range than most other countries did (anybody want to try raiding B-29 bases on Saipan using Iwo Jima as a staging point using Ju-88/188s or Do 217s?).

It is tough comparing 30,000lb aircraft to aircraft weighing 35-37,000lbs.


----------

