# Best medium bomber?



## mosquitoman (Mar 1, 2005)

What's people's opinions? I don't know how good the likes of the A-26, Mossie, Mitchell, Havoc or even the Battle


----------



## reddragon (Mar 1, 2005)

I'm a'guessin' that somebody is a Monty Python fan!

I'm also guessing that I know your choice for the best medium bomber but I'll have to think on it fer a spell.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 1, 2005)

B-25 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 1, 2005)

i think this has to be split in two, Medium attack bombers and medium strateigic bombers, the B-25 is a strike bomber for example, the wellington a medium strateigic bomber.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 1, 2005)

Yes good point...

I dunno about the best strategic bomber though...


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 1, 2005)

I think the B-25 and the Mossie probably fit the bill the best. In both the METO and the PTO (includes the CBI) the B-25 did it's share and then some.

In the ETO and over the Atlantic the Mossie was great (of course thats what it was designed for).

Medium bombers are really Tactical aircraft Gunships truly are but the Wellington and B-26 were more effective at level bombing small targets so they were more Strategic than Tacticle. That's about the best split I can think of.


----------



## Erich (Mar 1, 2005)

B-25 would be my choice. The B-26 at times was very ill to it's crew.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 1, 2005)

A-26 Invader


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 1, 2005)

The B-26 was only really bad to it's crew on one mission where it got sent somewhere for the second day running, without fighter esort. Reddragon, what do you think my favourite medium bomber is then?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 2, 2005)

Erich said:


> B-25 would be my choice. The B-26 at times was very ill to it's crew.



Iirc the B-26 had the lowest loss rate of all the American medium bombers.


----------



## NightHawk (Mar 2, 2005)

The Ju-88, was 1 of the best medium range bombers,I am surprised it didnt get any votes.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 2, 2005)

I forgot about that one, definitely up there with the best


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 2, 2005)

my vote goes to the wellington........


----------



## reddragon (Mar 2, 2005)

Well, the Mosquito was such a versatile aircraft, I sort of thought you might be leaning toward that one. Seems it could so most anything.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 2, 2005)

I'd go for a Mossie or a B-25 if I was on a strike, a B-26 for bridges, train yards etc and a Wimpey for night bombing


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2005)

Id have B-25 for attack bombing, and like NH said, the Ju-88 for strategic bombing 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 2, 2005)

B-25 for attacking a large target eg a ship or an airfield. Mossie for pinpoint bombing of a building


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 2, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> B-25 for attacking a large target eg a ship or an airfield. Mossie for pinpoint bombing of a building



Better tell Coastal Command that they used their Mossies incorrectly.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 3, 2005)

Mossies were equal with the B-25, I just can't choose between them all


----------



## NightHawk (Mar 3, 2005)

The plane depends on the rule, If we are talking on a dive bombing mission, Id rather be in a Ju-88 or the "timber terror"(Mossies),
If high altetuid bombing, Then the B-26 no qustion.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 3, 2005)

I think we're not going to come to a conclusion, there's so many roles a medium bomber did. Each one was best at a different job


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 3, 2005)

Am I the only vote for the Invader?

I was used a Bomber. It had an internal bomb capacity equal to the B-25's (4,000lbs.) In addition, it was often loaded with another 2,000lbs in mountings under the wings for a total of 6,000lbs.

Those who point out that the A-26 was designated as an attack bomber or light bomber are really raising form over substance. The B-25 was used in the attack bomber role as well. Both the A-26 and B-25 were used for the same tasks but the A-26 could substantially outperform the B-25.

On another note, the Invader was no less of a medium bomber than the Mosquito was and again could outperform it in that role.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2005)

the wellington was the best strateigic bomber though.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2005)

In the early years maybe, but I think it was out performed by othe planes in the later years...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2005)

ok what other medium bomber could carry a cookie to berlin and beyond with the same greatness??


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 3, 2005)

The Mossie?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2005)

fair point......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2005)

Although that wasnt a strategic bomber...

And youre thinking too one sided lanc...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2005)

and you really expected me to do otherwise??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2005)

For the second time in 4 posts; fair point


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2005)

Best strategic bomber was the CANT Z.1007


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 3, 2005)

For me it has to be the Mossie (surprise!) or the B-25, they could do anything that could be asked of them. Those two would be better for a comparison than the Mossie and the P-38


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2005)

Naw, the B-25 and P-38 are in completely different leagues...A B-25 dogfighting a Zero would be something Id like to se  The P-38 could do more than the B-25 anywho though.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 3, 2005)

But if the Zero got in front of the B-25 it would be blasted to pieces


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2005)

If ANYTHING got in front of a B-25H it would be obliterated


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 3, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Naw, the B-25 and P-38 are in completely different leagues...A B-25 dogfighting a Zero would be something Id like to se  The P-38 could do more than the B-25 anywho though.



But I think mosquitoman is right about the B-25/Mossie being a closer comparison and except for speed a very appropriate one. The P-38 was primarily a fighter one of if not the very best piston fighter ever. P-38/Mossie/B-25 comparisons are really apples/oranges except that they were all so adaptable.

I've also heard of a B-25 pilot/Ace using the pilots guns!

By the way I got Warren Bodies book about the P-38, it's great. Verry informatitave and not only does it disspell many myths but has a lot of background about the P-38 and it's contemporaries. Deffenitly recomended.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2005)

Ill have to look out for that one! 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 3, 2005)

A B-25 ace, well I never


----------



## NightHawk (Mar 4, 2005)

You are leaveing the germens out of the disscusion, That is not fair,
The Ju-88 was every bit as good as other bomber from its class.

Its like the germen counterpart of The Timber Terror.

Just look how much versions it had:

Subtype Description: 
Ju88 A-Series (Bomber) 
Ju88A0 horizontal and dive bomber with 2 x 882kW Jumo 211B-1, 8 built in 1938 
Ju88A1 with 2 x 882kW Jumo 211G-1, 69 built in 1939 
Ju88A2 as A1, to be started from catapulte, 20 built for Finland 
Ju88A3 as A1, training aircraft 
Ju88A4 with 2 x 1040kW Jumo 211J-1, dive bomber aircraft with larger wing since 1940, larger tail since 1942 
Ju88A4trop as A4 for tropical regions 
Ju88A5 as A1 with larger wing, 2 x Jumo211G, bomber and surveyer aircraft 
Ju88A6 as A5 with balloon destroyer 
Ju88A6U as A5 used as long range sea surveyer with 2 x 880kW Jumo 211H 
Ju88A7 as A5, training aircraft with 2 x Jumo 211B1 or 211H 
Ju88A8 as A4 with 2 x 990kW Jumo211F-1 and Kuto nose 
Ju88A9 as A1 dive bomber for tropical missions (also known as Ju88A1trop) 
Ju88A10 as A5 for tropical missions 
Ju88A11 as A4 for tropical missions 
Ju88A12 as A5 with larger wing and cockpit with 2 x Jumo 211G-1, training aircraft 
Ju88A13 as A4, combat aircraft 
Ju88A14 as A4 with larger wing, Kuto nose with 2 x 1040kW Jumo 211J-1, ship attacks 
Ju88A15 as A4 with Jumo 211J-1 and bombs in a wooden bomb compartement below fuselage 
Ju88A16 as A14, training aircraft 
Ju88A17 as A4 with larger wing and 2 x Jumo 211-J1, torpedo bomber 

Ju88 B-, E- and F-Series (Bomber/Destroyer/Surveyer) 
Ju88B0 surveyer as A5 with 2 x 1150kW BMW801MA and new cockpit glas design, 10 built in 1940 
Ju88B1 as B0 for destroyer missions with stronger weapons, only prototype built 
Ju88B3 destroyer aircraft, only one built 
Ju88E0 as B-series with stronger defense weapons, only prototypes built in 1942 
Ju88E1 as B-series with BMW801ML, continued as Ju188E 
Ju88F as B0-series, continued as Ju188F since 1943 

Ju88 C-Series (Fighter and Destroyer) 
The C-Series was also known as Z-Series (Zerstorer=Destroyer) 
Ju88C0 destroyer night fighter, 2 x Jumo 211B-1 derivated from A1 (also known as Ju88Z, Ju88SA2) 
Ju88C1 as C0 with 2 x Jumo 211G-1 
Ju88C2 as C1 with larger wing and stronger weapons, 62 rebuilt from Ju88A1s in 1940, some with DB610 
Ju88C3 night fighter with 2 x BMW801A, projected only, not built 
Ju88C4 as C2 with radar equipment rebuilt from A5s since 1941 
Ju88C5 night fighter with 2 x BMW801MA as C2, only few built 
Ju88C6 heavy fighter, 2 x 1040kW Jumo 211J-1 as C1 with radar and stronger weapons 
Ju88C6a day fighter version of C6 
Ju88C6b night fighter version of C6 
Ju88C6c 
Ju88C7 destroyer aircraft with 2 x BMW801MA or Jumo 211J-1 with larger wing. 
Ju88C7a destroyer with bomb payload 500kg 
Ju88C7b increased bomb payload 1600kg 
Ju88C7c fighter version 

Ju88 D-Series (Surveyer) 
Ju88D0/D1 surveyer aircraft with 2 x Jumo 211J-1 as A4 with radar equipment, 330 built since 1940 
Ju88D2 surveyer aircraft as A5 with 2 x Jumo 211B-1 or G-1 with larger wing 
Ju88D3 as D1 for tropical missions 
Ju88D4 as D2 for tropical missions 
Ju88D5 further development of D1 with 2 x Jumo 211J-1 

Ju88 G-Series (Night Fighter) 
Ju88G1 night fighter with 2 x 1250kW BMW801G-2, derivated from A4 (wing) and Ju188 (fuselage) in 1943 
Ju88G2/G5 were not built 
Ju88G6 night fighter with 2 x 1290kW Jumo 213A1 with better radar equipment and stronger weapons 
Ju88G7 night fighter with 2 x Jumo 213A1 with FuG228 radar equipment, only prototype built 
Ju88G10 night fighter with 2 x Jumo 213A1 with FuG240 radar equipment, only prototype built, also known as Ju88H2 

Ju88 H-Series (Surveyer and Fighter) 
Ju88H1 surveyer, 2 x 1250kW BMW801G as D-series with larger fuselage and radar, prototypes only 
Ju88H2 long range fighter aircraft with 2 x BMW801G, prototypes only 
Ju88H3 surveyer aircraft with 2 x Jumo 213A with longer fuselage than H1/H2, not built 
Ju88H4 long range fighter aircraft with 2 x Jumo 213A and longer fuselage than H2, not built 

Ju88 N- and P-Series (Tank Destroyer) 
Ju88Nbwe ground support aircraft with flame canon, only 1 built from C4-series 
Ju88P1 tank destroyer aircraft with 2 x 1040kW Jumo 211J1, derivated from A4 in 1942 
Ju88P2/P3 as P1 with stronger attack weapons, prototypes only in 1943 
Ju88P4 as P1 with stronger attack weapons since 1943, 30 built 

Ju88 R-Series (Night Fighter) 
Ju88R1 night fighter aircraft with 2 x BMW801MA derivated from C6 (also known as C6/R1) 
Ju88R2 night fighter aircraft with 2 x BMW801G1 derivated from C6 

Ju88 S-Series (Quick Bomber) 
Ju88S0 quick bomber aircraft with 2 x 1250kW BMW801G2 with better aerodynamics since 1943 
Ju88S1/S2 as S0 with modified bomb connectors 
Ju88S3 with 2 x 1290kW Jumo 213A1 
Ju88S4 as S3 with inside bomb compartement, only prototype built 
Ju88S5 with 2 x Jumo213T, only prototype built. 

Ju88 T-Series (Surveyer) 
Ju88T1 surveyer aircraft with 2 x BMW801G2 derivated from S1 
Ju88T3 surveyer aircraft with 2 x Jumo 213A1 derivated from S3, only projected. 

Ju88Z destroyer series, built under designator Ju88C 

Ju88 Mistel-Series 
Mistel 1 combination of Ju88 and Me109F, for training, 12 built, also known as Mistel S1 
Mistel 2 combination of Ju88G and Fw190A, 75 built 
Mistel 3B combination of Ju88H and Fw190A 
Mistel 3C combination of Ju88H/Fw190A, Ju88 with dropable center gear for better take off performance 

Ju188 Series: 
Ju188A0 horizontal bomber aircraft with 2 x 1285kW Jumo213A1, further development of E-series since 1943 
Ju188A1 dive bomber as A0, not built as dive bombing program was stopped 
Ju188A2 horizontal bomber aircraft as A0 since 1944 
Ju188A3 torpedo aircraft as A1, improved E3 
Ju188C0 with remote backward Mgs as A1, only prototypes built 
Ju188D1/D2 long distance surveyer as A1, built since spring 1944 
Ju188E0 initial prototypes with 2 x 1250kW BMW801G2 derivated from Ju88E, 10 built 
Hu188E1 as E0 with 2 x 1270 BMW801D2 
Ju188E2 torpedo aircraft as E1 
Ju188F1/F2 surveyer aircraft as E1 with radar equipment 
Ju188G0/G2 bomber aircraft as E1, only prototypes built 
Ju188H2 surveyer aircraft as E1, only projected, not built 
Ju188J projected destroyer and night fighter with pressured cabin, built as Ju388J 
Ju188K projected bomber with pressured cabin, built as Ju388K 
Ju188L projected surveyer with pressured cabin, built as Ju388L 
Ju188R0 night fighter aircraft, as E1, only prototypes built 
Ju188S1 high altitude bomber with 2 x Jumo213E1, only few built 
Ju188T1 surveyer aircraft as S1 

Ju388 Subtypes: 

J-Series (Day and Night Fighter) 
Ju388J1 with BMW 801J0 (1330kW, destroyer and night fighter 
Ju388J2 with 2 x Jumo 222A/B (1470kW), destroyer and day fighter, also night fighter, projected 
Ju388J3 with 2 x Jumo 213D, day and night fighter, no serial production until end of WWII, projected 

K-Series (Bomber) 
Ju388K1 with BMW801J0 and BMW801G 
Ju388K2 with Jumo 222A/B, later also Jumo 222E/F, projected 
Ju388K3 with Jumo 213E, projected 

L-Series (Surveyer) 
Ju388L1 with BMW801J0 and BMW801G, long range surveyer, 3 seats 
Ju388L2 with Jumo 222A/B, later Jumo 222E/F, projected 
Ju388L3 with Jumo 213E, projected 

Ju388M as J with 4 seats in cockpit, torpedo bomber 


Ju488 four engined, strategic bomber


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2005)

Thats a nice little overview of he Ju-88 there! 8)



> The Ju-88 was every bit as good as other bomber from its class.
> 
> Its like the germen counterpart of The Timber Terror.



No, the German counterpart of the Timber Terror was the Ta-154 Moskito, also made of wood.

Coincedience? I dont think so.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 4, 2005)

The JU-88 may have been the best German medium bomber of the war but it fell far short compared to the allies' offerings.

I still say the Invader was the best medium bomber of the war. 

6,000lb ordinance capacity
355mph top speed
Plenty of defensive (and offensive) armament

It's no wonder the Invader served through two wars after WWII.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 4, 2005)

on the subject of books CC, yours came today.........

and it'm still saying wellington............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2005)

Ooooooooo!  *Claps*

You have credit on eBay. £35 was it?


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 5, 2005)

Lanc, I agree the Wimpey was good but I don't really see it making low-level precision attacks, all guns blazing


----------



## NightHawk (Mar 5, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Lanc, I agree the Wimpey was good but I don't really see it making low-level precision attacks, all guns blazing


Can it manuver properly at low altetuids ?, And not brake apart when diveing ?


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 5, 2005)

The Wellington was not an attack bomber. It was designed for high-altitude level bombing, like the contemporary Hampden and Whitley. It was too big, too slow, and incorrectly armed for the Mossie/Havoc interdiction and attack role.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 5, 2005)

A interesting device. The Stuvi Divebombing sight for Ju-88A-4


----------



## NightHawk (Mar 5, 2005)

BombTaxi said:


> The Wellington was not an attack bomber. It was designed for high-altitude level bombing, like the contemporary Hampden and Whitley. It was too big, too slow, and incorrectly armed for the Mossie/Havoc interdiction and attack role.


I know that, I am just bringing up a point.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 5, 2005)

It depends on what it is attacking. The B-24 and Whimpy attacked U-boats.


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 5, 2005)

Fair point! 8) As someone said back on the first page, we need to draw a distinction between multi-engine strike aircraft and twin-engine strategic bombers (or 'level bombers' if you prefer), or we're going to end up debating chalk and cheese comparisons.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 5, 2005)

Okay then- best level bomber anyone? 
and best attack bomber?


----------



## NightHawk (Mar 6, 2005)

Sounds good.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 6, 2005)

Let's see ... attack bomber ...

A-26 INVADER Biotch!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2005)

CC, i want the money, not ebay credit..............

and best level bomber, the wimpy................


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)

Best level bomber- Wimpey ir B-26 (I'm a big fan of both)
Best attack bomber- Mossie or B-25, I just don't like the looks of the Invader DAVIDICUS


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 6, 2005)

For level bomber, Im gonna go with Wimpey, simply because it was stupidly tough and was Bomber Command's backbone while the heavies were still being intergrated.

For attack bomber, Im gonna gave to say B-25, simply because it did what the Mossie did with bigger weapons and more of 'em! 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)

Out of all of them, the Mossie was the all-rounder. It was an attack bomber, night bomber and a day bomber


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2005)

amoung countless other things.......


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)

exactly, the Mossie was the all-rounder out of the medium bombers


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2005)

i'm just waiting for CC to come along and say the droopsnoot P-38 was the best medium bomber...........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2005)

i really wouldn't be supprised if he did, i know him well enough to say that.......


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)

Let's wait and see......


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 6, 2005)

Ive always thought that the mossie suffered somewhat for being an all-rounder. It could have been the British Lightning...or a twin-engined Typhoon...or the best nightfighter of the war...or an anti-shipping strike aircraft...but in the end it was jack of all trades and master of none. Thats not to take away from the massive contribution the mossie made to the RAF campaigns, especially Operation Overlord, but I cant help feeling that had the mosiie been given just one or two roles, it might have trult excelled 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)

It excelled anyway- best nightfighter, best pathfinder and one of the best anti-shipping aircraft. Wasn't that bad at submarine killing either


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2005)

but it did truely excel, it was the allie's best nightfighter, one of our best bombers, a first rate maritime patrol aircraft and a superb attack plane..........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)

exactly


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 6, 2005)

Ok, a few things...

1. How are you defining best nightfighter? In any quantatative assessment (i.e kills/losses), the winner will be a German type simply because they did the most nightfighting. The Mossie NFs didnt face the kind of combat testing the German aircraft did.

2. Anti-shipping - only a few of the Mollins Gun fitted models were delivered. Quantataively, something like the SBD, D3A or B25 is going to get the ship hunting title. So again, how can you support an argument that the Mossie is the best ship-killer of the war?

Im not trying to be awkward, its just that you seem confident that the Mossie beat all other aircraft at everything, even roles in which it had little participation 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2005)

at no point, you can check if you wish, did i claim the mossie was the allies best anti-shipping aircraft, i said she was "a first rate maritime patrol aircraft", and i know only about 18 Mk.XVIIIs were made, she still did allot of work with rockets...............

"the winner will be a German type simply because they did the most nightfighting" why the hell are you bringing german fighters into this?? i said the mossie was the best allied nightfighter, what's that got to do with the germans??


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 6, 2005)

Sorry,I was referring to Mosquitomans post for the anti-shipping claim and the nightfighter claim - I hadnt seen your post, it must have been posted as I typed


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)

The Mossie, Beau and B-25 were the best anti-shipping, note in my earlier post I said the Mossie was one of the best. I didn't say it was the best


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 6, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> It excelled anyway- best nightfighter, best pathfinder and one of the best anti-shipping aircraft. Wasn't that bad at submarine killing either



That was the post I was going by. I withdraw the anti-shipping comment - that was misunderstanding on my part  But I still stand by comments about the mossie not being the best nightfighter of the war


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 6, 2005)

BombTaxi said:


> mosquitoman said:
> 
> 
> > But I still stand by comments about the mossie not being the best nightfighter of the war
> ...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 6, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i really wouldn't be supprised if he did, i know him well enough to say that.......



Well you obvioulsy dont...why do you keep assuming that im going to say riduculous things? I aint a f*cking thick shit


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 6, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i'm just waiting for CC to come along and say the droopsnoot P-38 was the best medium bomber...........



While they were very effective at Path finding (visual and radar) and bombing, including with several normal P-38s carrying up to 5,200lb loads up to 450 mi radius, The powers that be decided that with the large numbers of bombers available it was not necissary to use the P-38 for those missions unless it was needed for a specific target.

Ploesti was that kind of target, after all the other attempts of destroying the refineries were inadequate they sent the P-38s. The P-38 raid was the most effective though it didn't stop the refining completely or permanently. The Germans/Romanians were exceptional at damage control/repair. Droop Snoots were not used on the main raid though may have been used at a later date.


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 6, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> To compare an a/c's performance, one has to ask if it would have better or worse while flying for the other airforce. So, would the Mossie have done better or worse in LW service than the LW's NFs?



Now thats a criterion I can work with! I think this should go to the approporiate thread in the polls section though, that is where this particular strand of the discussion belongs  8)


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 6, 2005)

should have included 'for example' BT.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)

I think the thing is that we all have our preferences and we're not going to be swayed by any conflicting views


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 6, 2005)

"I think the thing is that we all have our preferences and we're not going to be swayed by any conflicting views"
----------------------------------------------------

I agree. The A-26 Invader was clearly the best of the best!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)

Nah it's got to be the Mossie just look at those clean lines, that cavernous bomb bay, the guns and cannon on the front and the rockets on the wings


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 6, 2005)

Some of the A-26 B models had eight .50 cal. machine guns packed in the nose and six .50 cal. machine guns mounted in the wings in addition to dorsal and ventral mountings of two .50 cal. machine guns each. The dorsal .50's could be locked into a forward firing position enabling the pilot to unleash the fury of sixteen .50 cal's. (At a cyclic rate of 700 rpm, that's a total of 11,200 rpm or 187 rps!)

Of course, the above was in addition to bombs in the internal bomb bay and rockets mounted under the wings.

Compared to that, the Mosquito was just an annoying wooden insect capable of inflicting a mere topical, itchy welt. :agrue:


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 7, 2005)

Okay. hows about Russian planes as I'm sure the Pe-2 and Tu-2 (I think) were equal medium bombers


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2005)

or even some jap designs??


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 7, 2005)

good point, Jap bombers didn't have the armour of protective armament though. The bombload wasn't the best as range was what the Japanese wanted


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 7, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Some of the A-26 B models had eight .50 cal. machine guns packed in the nose and six .50 cal. machine guns mounted in the wings in addition to dorsal and ventral mountings of two .50 cal. machine guns each. The dorsal .50's could be locked into a forward firing position enabling the pilot to unleash the fury of sixteen .50 cal's. (At a cyclic rate of 700 rpm, that's a total of 11,200 rpm or 187 rps!)
> 
> Of course, the above was in addition to bombs in the internal bomb bay and rockets mounted under the wings.
> 
> Compared to that, the Mosquito was just an annoying wooden insect capable of inflicting a mere topical, itchy welt. :agrue:



Ah, guns, nice! 

Id prefer a B-25H though.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 7, 2005)

I wonder how effective that 75mm gun actually was. A prototype of the A-26 was to have a 75mm gun and two fifty caliber machine guns packed into the nose but they decided it wouldn't be that effective with a manual, slow rate of fire. Perhaps the A-26's mission requirements required less shipping attacks. 

How successful was the B-25H with it's gun?


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 7, 2005)

I've heard reports that 3 shells hurt a Jap destroyer so much it had to be beached and one shell mad planes disentegrate


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 7, 2005)

From http://www.341stbombgroup.org/aircraft/b25h.htm

"Combat sorties confirmed that the cannon-armed B-25H offered no particular advantage over specially-adapted strafers armed exclusively with machine guns. At this stage in the war, targets specifically suited for cannon attack were relatively few and far between, and many targets that were vulnerable to the cannon were also vulnerable to a battery of 0.50-inch machine guns or to bombs. Consequently, the use of the heavy cannon was generally abandoned in the South-West Pacific by August of 1944."

I bet 16 fifties can cause a plane to disintegrate too. Besides, I heard that the A-26 could leap tall buildings in a single bound.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 7, 2005)

I never knew the A-26 had legs with which it used to leap


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2005)

Sheer number of guns is bringing me over to the A-26 guys.....


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 8, 2005)

How many did the strafer B-25 have?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 8, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> How many did the strafer B-25 have?



The B-25J, 8 in the nose, 2 each fuselage side, and 2 in the upper turret.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 8, 2005)

The strafer B-25's were basically equal in armament to the A-26's. Some even had racks for rockets. The A-26 could bring an additional two fifties to bear, but when you're talking about that many guns, two more don't confer superiority.

The flight performance of the A-26 was quite clearly head and shoulders above the B-25 though.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 8, 2005)

If the A-26 is the best attack bomber, hows about the best level bomber that was classed as medium?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 8, 2005)

I have seen the A-26 Invader classified as an attack bomber, a light bomber and a medium bomber.

It's various roles and functions were indistinguishable from the B-25 Mitchell.

With it's 6,000lb bomb capacity (4,000lbs internal and 2,000lbs external) it could walk the walk of a medium bomber like the B-25, but at a running pace.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 8, 2005)

And the Mossie could carry exactly the same amount to Berlin and back twice in one night


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 8, 2005)

Yes but how can you take an aircraft seriously when it was was built of wood by people with bad teeth.

Surely you wouldn't disagree.


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 8, 2005)

But the mossie lost some of its vital speed and maneuverability with a 'Cookie'in the bomb bay...and the Mitchell/Invader had the benefit of being tougher and the advantage of a defensive armament.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2005)

Indeed. The Mossie only really had the advantage when its load had been dropped.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 8, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Yes but how can you take an aircraft seriously when it was was built of wood by people with bad teeth.
> 
> Surely you wouldn't disagree.



Are you saying I have bad teeth ? 
Besides, building the Mossie out of wood made it very light and manouverable aswell as not using up essential war materials. There was a logic to it


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 8, 2005)

If the dentures fit ...

I'm just kidding. The Mosquito was a fine aircraft. I do think the A-26 was better in an attack / light / medium bomber role though. Just my opinion.

I notice that you are a rugby fan. My alma mater, U.C. Berkeley, has won the collegiate national championship 13 of the last 14 years. In fact, we beat our arch rival Stanford last weekend 82-5.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 9, 2005)

Sounds like it was a walkover, BTW what's an "alma mater"?

What's the range of an A-26, because I know the Mossie's range was good


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 9, 2005)

An "alma mater" is term for a school where you earn a degree.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 9, 2005)

Here, it's called a university


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 9, 2005)

It's a university here too. For example:

University of California at Berkeley

Stanford University

Alma mater is a term meaning that you not only attended but graduated from the university. Had I attended Berkeley for a while but then dropped out without graduating, it would still be a university I attended but not my alma mater.

I have seen the A-26's range listed from 1,400 to 2,200 miles. I'm frankly not sure what to believe. Maybe someone else can shed some light on it.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 9, 2005)

Depends if it's got it's max bombload on board


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2005)

you couldn't really see the B-26 on long range strateigic bombing missions over berlin for example...........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 9, 2005)

exactly. On the other hand a Wimpey could do one trip a night but a Mossie could do it twice in one night


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 9, 2005)

The B-26 Marauder had a range of 1,100 miles with a 4,000lb bomb load.

How much of a range was needed to strike Berlin?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 9, 2005)

So, does anyone know what the range of an A-26 Invader would be with a 6,000lb bomb load?

How about a Mosquito with a 6,000lb bomb load?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you couldn't really see the B-26 on long range strateigic bombing missions over berlin for example...........



But we're not talking about the B-26...it was fairly different from the A-26. Made by different manufacturers I think.


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 9, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > you couldn't really see the B-26 on long range strateigic bombing missions over berlin for example...........
> ...



The B-26 was built by Martin Manufacturing and discontinued at the end of the war.

The A-26 was an off shoot of the Douglas twin (Havoc?) that was provided to the Brits early in the war at wars end the designation was changed to B-26 when the Martin bomber went away. It was retired from Air Force service in 1966 after serving in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 9, 2005)

I only mentioned the B-26 because the lancaster kicks ass said, "you couldn't really see the B-26 on long range strateigic bombing missions over berlin for example..........."

I don't know why he threw that into the mix. An early onset of dimentia perhaps.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2005)

Maybe he thought they were the same. He's only really highly knowledgeable on British aircraft. I dont blame him though, I also used to think they were the same


----------



## evangilder (Mar 9, 2005)

That designation has always been a problem because there was a B-26 and an A-26, which were different manufacturers. The Havoc was the A-20, BTW. The A-26 was the Invader, the B-26 was the Marauder. It is difficult to keep them separate!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 9, 2005)

Post WW2 the A-26 became the B-26.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 10, 2005)

That's what really adds to the confusion!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 10, 2005)

But still, what was the best medium for area bombing?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 10, 2005)

A-26 Invader

Is anyone else experiencing Deja Vu?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 11, 2005)

Im agreed with DAVIDICUS now, no-one else has presented any better cases.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 11, 2005)

Infamy Infamy, they've all got in for me (or my favourite plane at least)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2005)

The Invader looks better


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 12, 2005)

You were saying?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2005)

Yes I was. I was saying the Invader looked better!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 12, 2005)

Could an Invader get one of these in then?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 12, 2005)

Isn't that a waste receptical from the latrines? No, the Invader didn't pull shit delivery duty.  

Seriously though, what kind of ordinance is it?


----------



## NightHawk (Mar 13, 2005)

Looks like a smaller version of the DamBusters bouncing bomb.

Well, You think it can carry 1 of this babys ?


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Mar 13, 2005)

Too long to be a dambuster bomb like the Lancaster carried. Although the Mosquito did carry a dambusting bomb that was ball shaped, I remember the word Highball mentioned in there too.

Anyway I'm pretty sure thats a cookie!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

yes that is a 4,000lb "cookie" high explosive bomb..........

and yes the mossie did carry the "highball" she could carry two in fact. The were developed by Dr. Barnes Wallis to be used against the Tirpitz and worked on the same priciples as his "upkeeps"...............


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 13, 2005)

Yep, it's a 4,000lb cookie blast bomb. These could be carried to Berlin and back by Mossies during the day and they still had tiny casualty rates


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2005)

Yeah but its only got 4 guns. A small amount. You need about 16 for true effectiveness


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

dude for strateigic bombing you don't need guns, the cookies weren't use on strafing attacks you know...........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 13, 2005)

This thread concerns the best medium bomber and not the most effective single 4,000lb piece of ordinance that could be dropped.

As between the Mosquito and Invader, both with 6,000lb bomb loads, I believe the A-26 is the better aircraft. It could take more punishment, had radial engines and a significant defensive armament.

As to flight performance, I don't know how the Mosquito handled with 6,000lbs of ordinance but have heard that she was slow, sluggish and unforgiving. I believe the A-26 performed better with a heavy ordinance load.

Perhaps someone can produce some stats for us.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 13, 2005)

The question is, could an A-26 get to Berlin and back with a 6,000lb bombload, that's what it comes down to


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 13, 2005)

I understand that the A-26's maximum range with a maximum ordinance load was 1,400 miles. I don't know if this was accurate. 

Does anyone know the maximum range of the Mosquito and Invader with 6,000lb ordinance loads?

Anyone? ... Beuller? Beuller?


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 13, 2005)

Sorry, all my info's at home and I'm not home for another week and a half


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 13, 2005)

I was reading another thread entitled "P-38 or Mosquito" and noticed that "The Lancaster Kicks Ass" posted the following stats: 

DH Mosquito B.MK XVI

max speed: 415mph
range on internal fuel with max payload: 1,485 miles
ceiling: 37,000ft
payload: 5,000lb 

I also noticed other quotes that the Mosquito only carried a max of 4,000lbs on missions to Berlin.

I believe the range of the A-26 Invader with a 6,000lb ordinance load was 1,400 miles.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 14, 2005)

For actual achievements (The Amiens Raid, daylight bombing of Berlin, Banff Strike Wing etc...) The Mossie wins


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)

yeah davidicus i wouldn't trust to much that i post


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 14, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> For actual achievements (The Amiens Raid, daylight bombing of Berlin, Banff Strike Wing etc...) The Mossie wins



The 8th AF bombed Berlin in daylight plenty of times...and I think that Amiens and the Banff Strike Wing has more to do with aircrew skill than the a/c used. The same job could probably have been done with Invaders, Marauders or any other twin-engined bomber.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 14, 2005)

The Invader was in 9th AF service which was used for tactical bombing- bridges etc in France and then on into Germany


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 14, 2005)

I relise that. I only meant Invaders for the Amiens/Banff comment  Point I wanted to make is that the mossie is far from the only a/c to have bombed Berlin by day.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)

yes but she was the first to do it in the way she did, i.e. a fast medium bomber


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 14, 2005)

Not without fighter escort and with such a low loss rate


----------



## Devin Dilley (Mar 18, 2005)

Hey now i gotta go with cheddar cheeze cause the b-25 was classified the best medium bomber in WWII


----------



## Devin Dilley (Mar 18, 2005)

Hey now I don't care if you are a lumberjack cause i'm only eleven and I myself could give you all aircraft in WWII and their seperate verions!!!!
B-25H is the best Cheddar Cheez


----------



## Devin Dilley (Mar 18, 2005)

You guys i think the boys in the doolittle raid are your most brave pilots and crews of WWII


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 18, 2005)

Deifnitley the crews of Bat out of Hell and Green Hornet that got captured but then again it takes courage to fly any sort of combat operation.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 19, 2005)

Devin Dilley said:


> Hey now I don't care if you are a lumberjack cause i'm only eleven and I myself could give you all aircraft in WWII and their seperate verions!!!!
> B-25H is the best Cheddar Cheez



EVERY aircraft? Ok then, name me an Italian 4 engined anti shipping aircraft 

I also changed my mind on the best to the A-26, BTW  Welcome!


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 19, 2005)

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 lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

ok list me every mark of the British Avro lancaster, and that's EVERY mark with it's proper designation.......


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 20, 2005)

As far as picking the ''Best Medium Bomber'' goes, it's abit like cricket etc...it's about how many ''runs''....

Initially I agree with wmaxt, that both the Mossie B.25 were excellent in this role, especially in terms of length of service.....and Nighthawk also has pointed-out that the Ju-88 was also an exceptional Medium bomber, which was indeed the case, credit due....

I think the A-26 was an excellent aircraft...still is...but one point here is that it didn't actually come on line until 1944, when it was intially used by OSS to drop agents into Europe...and then was further employed in it's various roles....

As stated, it has been universally accepted that the B-25 was ''The Best Medium Bomber of WWII '', as it was in there real early, used by both the RAF and US in virtually all theatres, and aircraft such as the B-26 and A-26 were supposed to be replacements for the B-25.....It earned the honour also by 'Doolittle's Raid', which was of enormous boost for the American morale at the time, as the first blow, back at Japan...not unlike RAF's ''1,000 Bomber Raid'' against Cologne.....

We cannot discount the Mosquito's contribution, the ''Light Night Strike Force's'' raids into the heart of Germany, UNARMED and ''cookie-capable'', they were counted as 'heavy-raids,' by the Germans themselves....Over and above everything else Mossies did in their various roles, also the fact that they were only two-crewed, where every other bomber was multi-crewed...Mossies were 'economy-personified' in a time of many shortages... 

Anyway, my predisposition to the Mosquito really goes without saying, but I believe that what the B-25 was to America, at the start of the War for them, the Wellington was for Britain, followed then by the Mosquito, and the US went on with the B and A-26's......
Germany's Ju-88 was their best, and maybe the Cant as CC says, for Italy, although the SM-79 was probably used more, and Russia had it's Pe-2 and Il-2, then Japan's best medium, I feel, was probably the Ki-46......

Hard to pick one, really....but I believe the B-25 got it years ago....which is hard for me, because I named my son 'Mitchell', and I cherish the Mossie Mitchell both.............


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2005)

any reson for the name mitchell??


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 21, 2005)

Are we talking why call the plane Mitchell or Gemhorse's son?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2005)

Gemhorse Jnr.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 21, 2005)

ahh, because the plane was named after Billy Mitchell, a USAAF officer who got court-martialled because he thought air power could beat anything


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2005)

yes i've been reading about him in a book...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2005)

> and maybe the Cant as CC says, for Italy, although the SM-79 was probably used more



Yes the difference being the SM.79 was primarily a torpedo bomber whereas the Z.1007 was used on land targets  If it was for best torp. bomber I would have gone with Sparviero


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 21, 2005)

Best torp plane was the Beau, by a MILE


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 22, 2005)

or the swordfish........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2005)

How about no, it was the SM.79.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 22, 2005)

Tell that to the crew of the Bismark or the the Duilo


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2005)

3 engines are better than 1, or even 2


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 22, 2005)

In that case, the Spruce Goose would be the best- it's got 8 engines!


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 22, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> 3 engines are better than 1, or even 2



3 engines never has set well with me. Not enough for real redundancy just enough to keep an underpowered plane in the air - ya know.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2005)

Aha, but the versions of the SM.79 due for Romania had just 2 engines with a glazed nose in place of the middle engine! Similar performace to the trimotor 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 22, 2005)

Exactly, so the 3rd engine wasn't needed


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

I tend to agree... why use 3 engines...unless they are all weak, and need their power combined to lift the plane into air... It wouldn't have been faster or more manuvrable, it would only have had 3 engines...more drag...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2005)

and more engines isn't nessisarily better..........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 26, 2005)

Only if somebody's trying to shoot your engines off


----------



## Mosin (Mar 26, 2005)

Hi guys its me Mosin. 
I think the JUNKER 88 is the best medium bomber out of the top 4.. 
Heres my list 1 through 4 
1. JUNKER 88 
2. B-25 
3. B-26 
4. the WELLINGTON 
But this is just my opinion. 
Bye


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 26, 2005)

the wellington was the best IMO........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 27, 2005)

Mosin, where's the Mossie?


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 27, 2005)

Well, it was my mother that first thought of 'Mitchell', and being rather exasperated by then, trying to pick a name all liked, I leapt at it, as the aircraft was my first thought, and Billy Mitchell came to mind also, as he really stood-up for what he believed in, and that was certainly proved right....Just to be different, the other-half decided we should spell it with just one 'l', and that's how it's been....Now at 10, he most certainly stands-up for himself, and he's been introduced to the B-25 Mitchell which he was quite chuffed with...with all those guns!!

Getting back to topic, Lanc's suggestion of the Wellington is hot too, 'cause it's really about 'service', and the Wellington gave that for sure....
The Sm.79 gave great service for the Italians, sending alot of tonnage to the sea floor, they were a real pain in the ass in the MTO and Malta's survival....but they were more a Torp. bomber...

I gotta go with universal agreement and say ....
1. B-25
2. Mosquito... [this is the only time it's 2nd...]
3. Wellington
4. Ju-88


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 28, 2005)

Nice list Gemhorse, I don't see why the Beau isn't up there aswell though


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

A-26 Invader! (NOT the same as the B-26 Marauder)

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 29, 2005)

Thank you RG_Lunatic.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 29, 2005)

the beau can't be considdered a medium bomber..........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 29, 2005)

My mistake  , I thought it had moved on to torpedo bombing for a bit. Very good list then


----------



## luftlover (Nov 29, 2007)

just one that hasn't come up yet...

the Ar 234 blitz

fast....._really_ fast, good handeling, ok reliability(darn jets )

not suggesting best, (not enough carrying capacity) but concidering it had a good chance of surviving in 1945, that has to count for something


----------



## HellToupee (Nov 30, 2007)

1. Mossie
2. ju88
3. tu-2

Mossie and 88 obvious but IMO i think the Tu-2 is pretty underrated, it was very fast with good bombload and range, long served with significant numbers.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 30, 2007)

Sure 3 engines mean more speed. The Z.1007 ter proved to be faster than the Z.1018 which had two stronger engines.
The main advantage of having three engines is survivability. One engine out on a twin engined aircraft usually means a crash but that cannot be said for a three engined aircraft which will then only lose 33 % of its power. 

It's bad for the defensive fire arrangement though. 

Kris


----------



## Marcel (Dec 2, 2007)

Very confusing, a "best medium bomber" thread and a "Top medium bomber" thread


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 2, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Sure 3 engines mean more speed. The Z.1007 ter proved to be faster than the Z.1018 which had two stronger engines.
> The main advantage of having three engines is survivability. One engine out on a twin engined aircraft usually means a crash but that cannot be said for a three engined aircraft which will then only lose 33 % of its power.




It doesn't always work that way Chris. One has to look at the specific aircraft single engine performance and that will determine part of the survivability of the aircraft. Some aircraft fly real well on one engine and can attain at least a 200' per minute climb on one engine (which in many cases is all you need). Other aircraft will actually loose altitude and will not sustain any climb performance on one engine. If I remember most US twins had real good engine out performance and in some cases were actually overpowered. I do know the He 111 did not fly well on one engine. The the event of a tri motor you're still playing with engine out procedures if one of the outboard engines fail, if the center engine goes it's almost a non issue and I would guess the degradation of performance would not be as great as with a twin..


----------



## Oreo (Jul 20, 2008)

I think if I had to choose one to fight the last six months of the war, it would be a toss-up among the A-26 Invader, the Ju 188, and the Tu-2. Now for the record, the Pe-2 was a good plane too, and I think the Do 217 was fairly effective, at least when it first came out, the A-20 was serious business in 1942, the Ju 88 couldn't be kept down, the Mosquito too, but then, some might argue whether it was truly a medium. I would like to know more about the operational record of the PY1 Frances and also the LeO 451, which seem to have made a good account for themselves considering the formidable circumstances they faced. One thing to keep in mind is the rapid changing pace of technology and A/C development. Consider not how a plane was in the context of the whole war, but rather in the context of the part of the war it served in. The PZL P.37 Los was an excellent bomber for 1939, and had there been enough of them available, it might have done some serious damage to Germany. Amazingly, it carried a heavier bombload (some 5,000 lbs) in 1939 than most mediums carried in 1945. Another one I'd like to know more about is the Yer-2 from Russia, a twin-engine bomber with a range of over 3,000 miles. . . .


----------



## Ki-43-I Hayabusa (Jul 21, 2008)

I like the japanese Mitsubishi Ki-67 "Hiryu". It is often classified as a Heavy, but, with only 800kg bomb-load and two-engined, it´s a true medium i think. 
The "Hiryu" carried only a third from the bomb-load of the JU-88-A4 and have a fewer range, but was faster, fly higher and was heavier armed.
My Allied favorite is the Mitchell B-25.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 22, 2008)

For true the range of Type 4 army heavy bomber is larger of Ju 88


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

I say the dorner do 217 it could carry up to 8,000 pounds of bombs.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 29, 2008)

I would go with the Ju-88 too great plane all around


----------



## Waynos (Aug 30, 2008)

Aren't the Ar 234, Mosquito and Ju-88 light bombers? Surely medium bombers are the likes of the Wellington, He 111 and B-25?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 30, 2008)

The Ar 234 was more of an attack/light bomber (in terms of mombload, range, size, and since all bombs were carried on external racks)

I think the Ju 88 and Mossie would classify as medium bombers. (fairly long range and fairly large bombload, though in the case of the Ju 88 the max internal load was 1,400 kg/3084 lbs -28x 50kg bombs-) 

The Blenheim, Do 17, and A-20 would fit in as light-bombers.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 30, 2008)

Agreed Kool kitty


----------



## Waynos (Aug 31, 2008)

That doesn't work for me KK as the Mossie was a small and fast light bomber, the first 'strike aircraft' in the modern sense. It was about the same size as the Blenheim and much smaller than the Wellington or Hampden which were medium bombers. 

Similarly I think the Ju88 is much closer to the light class than the Do 17 was, I would call that a medium bomber in the He 111 class.

Having said all that I have read several times that Americans class light/medium or heavy by payload rather than actual size so we may not be arguing the same point anyway. But I don't see how a Ju 88 can be medium while a Do 17 is light ?


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 31, 2008)

Ju-88 was a medium bomber all references I have say Medium Bomber....Mossie was concieved at first as a unarmed fast bomber. 

Read all about it here 

The de Havilland Mosquito Page


----------



## Waynos (Aug 31, 2008)

As far as I know Ernst Udet ordered the Ju-88 to be developed as a 'heavy dive bomber' after the prototype had flown but that does not make it a heavy bomber either. I can give you the Ju 88 though as it is very borderline, although a fraction too small to be a true medium bomber, it is also too big to be 'light' . Also, all of my own references describe the type merely as a 'twin engined bomber' which seems a bit too vague really. I suppose I think of it as a light bomber simply by comparison alongside 'real' medium bombers like the He 111 and Wellington which were much bigger.

"Mossie was concieved at first as a unarmed fast bomber. 

Read all about it here 
"

I do actually know the Mosquito quite well thanks and it was not just concieved that way, it was built that way too. Just look at a Miossie next to a Wellington, they are not in the same size class. Even the Manchester was classed as a Medium bomber initially as this was the class of aircraft that P.13/36 called for.

Despite this DH deliberately set out to prove that the medium bomber spec could be met by a small light bomber, and this became the Mosquito.

There was a project to develop a larger medium bomber from the same design, this was the DH 102 but the Mossie was definitely a fast light bomber as was the Hawker P.1005. The Albemarle and its ilk were medium bombers while the Halifax and the (by now) Lancaster were reclassified as heavies.


----------



## namvet68 (Sep 2, 2008)

The B-26 Marauder is my pick. Bombing from medium altitudes of 10,000 to 15,000 feet, the Marauder had the lowest loss rate of any Allied bomber--less than one-half of one percent. By the end of World War II, it had flown more than 110,000 sorties and had dropped150,000 tons of bombs, and had been used in combat by British, Free French, Australian, South African and Canadian forces in addition to U.S. units. In 1945.


----------



## MacArther (Sep 2, 2008)

I'll go with the B-25, for its adaptability. It went from level bomber, to close support bomber, to gunship and was still viable in the other roles. The one qualm I have with it is having seen it in person it is very cramped for the gunners in the waist section, and presumably the rest of the plane.


----------



## Glider (Sep 2, 2008)

For what its worth my vote would go to the Do217


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 2, 2008)

Well i did see one at the Reading PA airshow it does seem like a pretty cramped plane


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 2, 2008)

The Ju88 excelled in the night fighter role. It also could carry the Fritz-X glide bomb.


----------

