# Top Medium Bomber



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2007)

Because of the arguement in the Best Bomber thread I figured I would start this up.

What do you think was the Top Medium Bomber? *Now Top does not necessarily mean the best or anything like that.* I personally dont really like the "Best of" threads because each aircraft can be considered the best in something in most cases.

Well have a go at it...


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 15, 2007)

A-26..

fast, good bomb load.....

B-25 for sentiment

I like the Petlyakov 2 but thats more of a twin engine light bomber.


----------



## Jank (Nov 15, 2007)

On the American side--

In terms of most damage inflicted on the axis -- B-25 Mitchell

In terms of which plane actually saw service and had the best mix of range, speed, payload and defensive armament -- A-26 Invader


----------



## Marcel (Nov 15, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Because of the arguement in the Best Bomber thread I figured I would start this up.
> 
> What do you think was the Top Medium Bomber? *Now Top does not necessarily mean the best or anything like that.* I personally dont really like the "Best of" threads because each aircraft can be considered the best in something in most cases.
> 
> Well have a go at it...



Good idea and I totally agree on your statement about "the best"
Okay, my list of top medium bombers because of their war effords in no particular order:
- Mosquito
- J88
- B25

Honourable mention: 
-Wellington, not for being superlative, but for trying against all odds
- He111
- B26


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 15, 2007)

The JU88 was demonstrated to be the best overall medium bomber.

Except for the low altitude strafing missions, in which the B25 was best.

But that was unique to the pacific.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2007)

My vote goes for the 

Ju 88
Mosquito
B-25

I like the Ju 88 because of its versatility.

I think the Mossie was overall the better aircraft (I dont think anyone will disagree with me either) but I still like the Ju 88 better because of its versatility and its war effort. Also as I said I dont think that the Best is necessarily the Top aircraft.

B-25 for its pacific war effort as syscom has said.

As for the Ar 234. I would not vote for it because in my opinion it was too little to late and it was proved more as a recon aircraft (in my opinion). It was however designed as a jet powered tactical bomber and therefore I included it in the poll.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2007)

Also I will be starting a poll for this for Heavy Bombers as well and as well as light bombers.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 15, 2007)

I agree, B25 also performed quite nicely in the tectical role in ETO furthermore it had a huge impact on Japanese moral because of the Doolitle raid, so it is indeed one of the top bombers


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 15, 2007)

The contenders would be the Ju-88, A-26, B-25 and the Mosquito. Of them all the Mossie and A-26 are faster and carry good bomb loads whilst the B-25 probably had the most effect on the war (in the Pacific). As for the Ju-88 it was proved to be a good all round bomber. For me it is the Mossie as it could carry a good bombload with a good armament whilst still being fast. The Ju-88 would be a close second (sort of joint first) with the A-26 and B-25 not far behind.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2007)

My Top 3 are the A-26, B-25 and JU 88. I hold the A-26 in the same manner as the B-29 for aerodynamic and systems advancements when comparing to other medium bombers. The B-25 really brought the war to the enemy and the JU 88 was an extremely versatile aircraft. I rate the A-26 slightly above both listed.


----------



## Glider (Nov 15, 2007)

The plane I would choose is the Do217. Beats the B25/B26 in performance, payload and its versitility is better than anyone.

However it isn't on the list so I would go for the Ki67. It lacked payload like all Jap bombers but it had range, performance and was well armed. It also had self sealing tanks and armour making it more robust than any other Jap bombers.


----------



## renrich (Nov 15, 2007)

I believe some of the bombers on your list are more likely to be classified as light bombers, for instance the A20 and JU88. The B25 and B26 would be clsssified as medium bombers along with HE 111 and DO 17.


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 15, 2007)

I never though of the Mossie as a medium bomber... How can u compare it to the B-26?

Both great aircraft but very different...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2007)

The A-26 was far from a light bomber when you look at its weapons and bomb load...


Armament
Guns:

8× 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns in the nose 
6× 0.50 in M2 machine guns in the wings 
2× 0.50 in M2 machine guns in remote-controlled dorsal turret 
2× 0.50 in M2 machine guns in remote-controlled ventral turret 
Bombs: 6,000 lb (2,700 kg)-4,000 lb in the bomb bay and 2,000 lb external on the wings


----------



## ToughOmbre (Nov 15, 2007)

B-25 - Very versatile (Doolittle Raider, low level strafing) 
A-26 - Most advanced (fought in Viet Nam)
B-26 - Bad early rep, but lowest attrition rate of any American aircraft serving with the Air Corps' 9th Air Force in Europe. 

All excellent  

TO


----------



## ppopsie (Nov 15, 2007)

To me it is B-26 Marauder. But I don't know which is the "best."

On discussions like this, I think it is better to set a certain time point to define what was the best, for example;

Each at the end of 
1940 Ju-88
1941 G4M1
1942 B-25 Mitchell
1943 B-26 Marauder
1944 Mosquito
1945 A-26 Destroyer


----------



## davparlr (Nov 15, 2007)

Okay, my shot.

Best medium bomber shouldering the load of WWII. Tie between Ju-88 and B-25.

Best overall, A-26B. Mosquito is faster but has limited load carrying capacity (half the A-26, B-25) and the A-26B is quite a bit faster than the Do217 with similar bombload/range capability. And, one could not picture any other bomber that could fly for another 20-25 years and fight two more wars.


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 16, 2007)

Please educate me... I cannot understand why the mosquito is a medium bomber....

In my estimation, it is a kick-ass, twin-engine light bomber. Perhaps it is in a category of its own but it does not belong in the same category as the B 26!!

All they have in common is twin engines. 

If we are lowering the standards for "medium bomber"... the Petlyakov Pe-2 was freakin awesome early in the war.
Petlyakov Pe-2 - attack



,


----------



## Freebird (Nov 16, 2007)

ppopsie said:


> To me it is B-26 Marauder. But I don't know which is the "best."
> 
> On discussions like this, I think it is better to set a certain time point to define what was the best, for example;
> 
> ...



I like the idea of the timelines. Its hard to beat the Ju-88 as an effective versatile early war aircraft. 

Also does "best medium bomber" judge only the bombing ability? Or does capability as night fighter/ground attack improve its rating?

Comiso - you have a good point, its hard to compare the 2. What would you use to separate light from medium bombers, payload or gross weight? Would the A-20 or Pe-2 then be "light bombers?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2007)

renrich said:


> I believe some of the bombers on your list are more likely to be classified as light bombers, for instance the A20 and JU88. The B25 and B26 would be clsssified as medium bombers along with HE 111 and DO 17.



I based them as medium based off of there bomb load they could carry.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Please educate me... I cannot understand why the mosquito is a medium bomber....
> 
> In my estimation, it is a kick-ass, twin-engine light bomber. Perhaps it is in a category of its own but it does not belong in the same category as the B 26!!




Because it could carry a bomb load of 4000lb and there were dedicated bomber versions which were:

Mosquito B.Mk IX: 1200 built
Mosquito B.Mk V: 1 built ( prototype only)
Mosquito B.Mk 35: 122 built

I am not sure on this last bit of info but I believe the Mossie could carry 6000lb over a very short distance.

*Basically a Medium Bomber can carry 3000lb+ of bombs. This ofcourse is what I am basing a Medium Bomber off of.* The only exception I made to this was the Japanese and Russian aircraft because they mostly had light and heavy. Most of the Japanese "Heavy" bombers carried a bomb load more comparable to a "Medium" bomber.

If you are going to only consider aircraft that carry 6000lb+ of bombs as medium bombers than the B-17 was only a medium bomber. Yes it could carry a bomb load of 17,417 lb but the bomb load was rarely above 5,071lb.

Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) 
Long range missions (≈800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg) 

"The heaviest bomb load carried by a B-17 was 8,000 lb and the farthest it was carried was to Nienburg, Germany[8]. The largest bomb load carried to its most distant target, Marienburg (now Malbork, Poland), was 4,540 lb[9]. These exceptional missions anchor the two ends of the maximum bomb-load line for the B-17. All other bomb loads carried by B-17’s over the Continent of Europe would lie below and to the left of the line. The average B-17 bomb load dropped in WW2 was between 4,000 lb and 5,000 lb."
Maximum reported B-17 B-24 bomb loads - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*So no the only thing these aircraft have in common is not the fact that they have 2 engines.*


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 16, 2007)

freebird said:


> Comiso - you have a good point, its hard to compare the 2. What would you use to separate light from medium bombers, payload or gross weight? Would the A-20 or Pe-2 then be "light bombers?



So much of this forum is up to interpretation, semantics and relative definitions. I just go with the parameters of who ever started the thread.

Yes the B-17 often had loads of 4000 - 6000 pounds but that was on LONG range missions. The extra load was dedicated to fuel.

I woulda considerered more factors then bomb load before making the pole but it's not my thread (gross weight of aircraft, crew members) .. I just want to know what the criteria was.

.


----------



## DBII (Nov 16, 2007)

I admit that I know nothing about the Ju 88. I will have to do my homework over the weekend. Right now I am leaning toward either the B25 or the Mosquito. I think that overall, the B25 had a larger impact of on the war. 

DBII


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Yes the B-17 often had loads of 4000 - 6000 pounds but that was on LONG range missions. The extra load was dedicated to fuel.
> 
> 
> .



Actually go and read the post again above. From actual USAAF records on the largest bomb load carried by B-17s over Germany and the range that it flew it on. It was only once and 8000lb. 

The normal bomb load was 5500lb.

Dont take me wrong the B-17 is a Heavy Bomber...


----------



## HoHun (Nov 16, 2007)

Hi Adler,

>*Basically a Medium Bomber can carry 3000lb+ of bombs. This ofcourse is what I am basing a Medium Bomber off of.* 

Hm, the Ju 87D could carry a 1800 kg bomb (almost 4000 lbs), so according to your definition, it would be a medium bomber, too.

(Just because I'm amazed it could haul that much ...)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Adler,
> 
> >*Basically a Medium Bomber can carry 3000lb+ of bombs. This ofcourse is what I am basing a Medium Bomber off of.*
> 
> ...



Technically yeah you are right. However no I would not count the Stuka as anything more than a Dive Bomber.

To me a Medium Bomber is a level flying aircraft that can carry 3000 to 5500lb of bombs.

I dont care how many crew members it had or the Max Take off Weight or anything like that because as I said there were dedicated versions of the Mossie that were Medium Bombers.

Actually I should remove the Ju 188 based off what I am calling a Medium Bomber because its typical payload was 6614lb of bombs as well as the Ju 288 which a bomb load of 6,614lb. I will make an exception to them however because they were developments of the Ju 88 (atleast the Ju 188 was).


----------



## ccheese (Nov 16, 2007)

I had to go with the B-25. Under Kenny, in the Pacific, that airplane raised
so much hell with para-frags, skip bombing and delayed action stuff it tore 
the Japanese a new one !

I personally believe it's a safer airplane than the B-26.

Charles


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2007)

On my rant again... 

One thing I disqualify the Ju88, Do17 and Mosquito on is the fact they are all twin engine tail draggers - not a healthy situation, but you guys heard that from me before...


----------



## drgondog (Nov 16, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Technically yeah you are right. However no I would not count the Stuka as anything more than a Dive Bomber.
> 
> To me a Medium Bomber is a level flying aircraft that can carry 3000 to 5500lb of bombs.
> 
> ...



I think I will opt for 'favorite' and 'twin engine' aircraft (flying weapon system) in bomb carrying role to avoid the parsing.

I like the B-26 Marauder in the role of daylight, precision, formation tactic weapon system - it was extrememly tough with high performance, probably the best defensive armament (along with B-25), excellent range with varying payloads.

I like the Mossie for it's speed, range and payload at all altitudes, its versatility in mission and its radar signature relative to other aircraft. If the mission is tactical daylight, I like the B-26 a little more, otherwise I favor the Mossie.

The Ju-88 was one hell of an airplane and weapon system but it doesn't survive the same threat profile (i.e daylight raids over Europe against Luftwaffe) as B-26. The Ju188 in my opinion should stay because it was a twin versus 4 engine and was a very good weapons system - better than Ju-88 and equal to my choices above but more vulnerable in high threat daylight role, in my opinion

I like the Ar 234 as a 'best' because it was technologically the best twin engine bomb carrying weapon system developed (I am excluding the Me 262 in this discussion)

My favorite of all of these is the A-26. If I had to pick one that I like the most this would be it.


----------



## Graeme (Nov 16, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> I cannot understand why the mosquito is a medium bomber....
> In my estimation, it is a kick-ass, twin-engine light bomber.



Historically your correct. It was designed around Specification B.I/40 asking for a "*light* reconnaissance bomber." Designed (initially) to "transport a bomb load of 1,000 lb, with the performance of a fighter, for 1,500 miles."

Its performance and bomb load just got better and better.


----------



## glennasher (Nov 16, 2007)

I used to know a guy who was a gunner on a Mitchell during the war, and said the Zeros had a really tough time catching up with them once they bombed. I think he said he flew from New Guinea, bombing Rabaul, mostly (it's been 25+ years ago). He was a huge fan of the Mitchell, for probably good reasons. Tough old coot..........


----------



## ppopsie (Nov 16, 2007)

B-26 Marauder;

As far as I know the Marauders were used almost sorely for the level, daylight precision bombing in the ETO. What were the reasons to provide additional bombing force to the main four engine bombers already in operation, and how were the Marauders evaluated in a whole?

My impression is that if it was to bomb tactical targets from medium altitudes, more precision, faster and shorter reaction time could be good factors but I am not sure. Economy could be another reason but there was no significant difference existed in the costs of B-17 and B-26. 

I admit the A-26 Invader was an efficient airplane type.


----------



## machine shop tom (Nov 16, 2007)

I vote for the Marauder. That plane was all business. Once it's work was done, they quit making them.

tom


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 16, 2007)

machine shop tom said:


> I vote for the Marauder. That plane was all business. Once it's work was done, they quit making them.
> 
> tom



They quit making them for awhile in 1943 because of the horrible loss rate during training.

Hardly something you would want for a bomber design during a war.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Nov 17, 2007)

The P-38 was smaller than the Mossie, but it had a good bomb load for it's size. It woud probably belong in a "light bomber thread."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 17, 2007)

I would not count the P-38 as a bomber at all. A fighter-bomber at the most. It was formost a fighter.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 17, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> They quit making them for awhile in 1943 because of the horrible loss rate during training.
> 
> Hardly something you would want for a bomber design during a war.


I believe most of the accidents were the result of poor training and not the fault of the aircraft, its a myth thats lasted from the 40's til the present


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 17, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I believe most of the accidents were the result of poor training and not the fault of the aircraft, its a myth thats lasted from the 40's til the present


Agree.

_General Doolittle sent his technical adviser, Captain Vincent W. "Squeak" Burnett, to make a tour of OTU bases to demonstrate how the B-26 could be flown safely. These demonstrations included single-engine operations, slow-flying characteristics, and recoveries from unusual flight attitudes. Capt Burnett made numerous low altitude flights with one engine out, even turning into a dead engine (which aircrews were warned never to do), proving that the Marauder could be safely flown if you knew what you were doing. General Doolittle himself carried out some demonstration flights with the B-26 in which he cut an engine on takeoff, rolled over, flew the plane upside down at an extremely low altitude for a distance, and then righted it safely. Martin also sent engineers out into the field to show crews how to avoid problems caused by overloading, by paying proper attention to the plane's center of gravity._

The Widow Maker


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> Agree.
> 
> _General Doolittle sent his technical adviser, Captain Vincent W. "Squeak" Burnett, to make a tour of OTU bases to demonstrate how the B-26 could be flown safely. These demonstrations included single-engine operations, slow-flying characteristics, and recoveries from unusual flight attitudes. Capt Burnett made numerous low altitude flights with one engine out, even turning into a dead engine (which aircrews were warned never to do), proving that the Marauder could be safely flown if you knew what you were doing. General Doolittle himself carried out some demonstration flights with the B-26 in which he cut an engine on takeoff, rolled over, flew the plane upside down at an extremely low altitude for a distance, and then righted it safely. Martin also sent engineers out into the field to show crews how to avoid problems caused by overloading, by paying proper attention to the plane's center of gravity._
> 
> The Widow Maker



Great post Al - it all amounted to training and the same holds true today for those who fly twin engine aircraft.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 17, 2007)

Hi Adler,

>I would not count the P-38 as a bomber at all. A fighter-bomber at the most. It was formost a fighter.

Are you aware that there was a dedicated bomber version of the P-38 that featured a glass nose housing a bombardiers position and a Norden bomb sight?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 17, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great post Al - it all amounted to training and the same holds true today for those who fly twin engine aircraft.


Which would explain the low loss rate in the ETO after the crew became familiar with the B-26.


----------



## glennasher (Nov 17, 2007)

The Marauder was used briefly in the Pacific, as they could carry two torpedoes, they went in on the initial strike from Midway, IIRC.


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 17, 2007)

I have to go with the B-25 fellas. But, with the B-26, Mosquito and Ju-88 in close second place.... I think taht we can also look at how many versions that was made of each aircraft...hard to beat the Mosquito and the Ju-88 there me thinks....


----------



## HoHun (Nov 17, 2007)

Hi Glennasher,

>The Marauder was used briefly in the Pacific, as they could carry two torpedoes, they went in on the initial strike from Midway, IIRC.

Correct!  Coincedentally, I just found this paragraph:

"LT [Tadashi] Kaneko happened to be on board the Akgi. On 4 June, he observed the wave formation attacks on his aircraft carrier and could no longer contain himself. Taking off from the carrier with four of his pilots, Kaneko intercepted and shot down two large torpedo planes."

(from Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units in World War II by Hata/Izawa)

I guess "large torpedo planes" must have been the Marauders, though they were actually in the first attack wave. Attachking from Akagi's starboard bow, Marauder leader Captain Collins also observed that they were attacked by six Zeros that had been previously fighting the Avengers on the port bow - so they were apparently already in the air at the time of the attack.

However, situational awareness in such a tight spot probably was not perfect anyway, and from the sound it, I figure the Japanese text might be sort of symbolic to express the fighting spirit of the Zero pilots. (Or maybe there's just something "lost in translation" - if the sentence would read "Having taken off ...", the contradiction would be resolved.)

Certainly the Marauders were the only twin-engined "torpedo planes" to attack at Midway, and they actually lost two out of the four attacking.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 17, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I believe most of the accidents were the result of poor training and not the fault of the aircraft, its a myth thats lasted from the 40's til the present



True. But remember the B26B model had a larger wing to lower the takeoff and landing speeds.

Either way, it isn't a good sign that you have to stop production of your primary medium bomber in the middle of a war to redesign the wing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> Which would explain the low loss rate in the ETO after the crew became familiar with the B-26.



Exactly - In many cases there was little or no transition training when a single engine pilot went into flying twin engine medium bombers.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 17, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Exactly - In many cases there was little or no transition training when a single engine pilot went into flying twin engine medium bombers.



Ahhh same thing!


----------



## davparlr (Nov 17, 2007)

Like cargo planes, bombers trade off load verses range. I prefer that the size of the bomber be rated on load carrying capacity, gross weight minus empty weight. While not completely accurate, it does give an idea of the total trade-off capability the aircraft has. The B-17 has a load carrying capacity of normally about 21000 lbs, the B-25 normally about 15000, the Mosquito normally about 5000 lbs (about the same as the P-38) or 11000 lbs if you pump it up to max TO weight (but you would have to adjust the performance of the other medium bombers to make equal). I don’t think the Mosquito falls into the realm of medium bomber.




DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Because it could carry a bomb load of 4000lb and there were dedicated bomber versions which were:
> 
> Mosquito B.Mk IX: 1200 built
> Mosquito B.Mk V: 1 built ( prototype only)
> Mosquito B.Mk 35: 122 built



I think that 2000 lbs was more the normal bomb load. I am sure the loss of some 350 gallons of gas would have a significant impact on range.



> I am not sure on this last bit of info but I believe the Mossie could carry 6000lb over a very short distance.



With an empty weight of 14900 lbs and a max take off weight of 22400 lbs. minus 6000 lbs of bombs that leaves 1500 lbs of fuel and pilots, etc. Hmmm, that’s about 170 gallons of fuel. Can you start two merlins on 170 gallons? Actually, its probably less than one hour of flight, probably about half after start, takeoff and climb, and approach and landing (with no reserve!). Very little useful range. If you loaded a B-25 to gross and put on only enough full for one hours flight, can you imagine the load you could carry?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Ahhh same thing!


----------



## HoHun (Nov 17, 2007)

Hi Adler,

>*Basically a Medium Bomber can carry 3000lb+ of bombs. This ofcourse is what I am basing a Medium Bomber off of.* 

I have looked up the Do 17 and Do 215, and it seems they were limited to a 1000 kg bomb load (2205 lbs). So technically, they are not medium bombers according to your definition.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## ppopsie (Nov 17, 2007)

Recently I found a research paper titled "World War II War Production-Why Were the B-17 and B-24 Produced in Parallel?" in which Jimmy Doolittle commented against the B-24. Another guy's comment about the type's loss while trainings in the paper too.

World War II War Production-Why Were the B-17 and B-24 Produced in Parallel?

About the Battle of Midway, an old JAL captain named Fujita one day after the war talked about his experience in Midway to his American co-pilot, that Fujita in his Zero couldn't caught up with a US twin engine torpedo plane which was so fast on the deck. Then his mate said "I was there I flew that one."


----------



## Heinz (Nov 17, 2007)

Mosquito for me however after that the JU88 and He111.

Mossie's attributes have already been mentioned. 
The ju88 because of its versility.
The heinkel just cause I like it


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 17, 2007)

B-25J
1275mi with 3200lb of bombs and 811 Imp gal of fuel at max cruise
Max short range bomb load - 4000lb

Mosquito B XVI
1370mi with 4000lb of bombs and 643 Imp gal of fuel at 245mph
Max TO weight B XVI - 25,917lb

DerAdlerIstGelandet
1200 is the number of B XVIs built. Only 54 B IXs were built. If you meant the B IV, there was only 263 built with 20 moded to carry 4000lb.

[3.0] Hornet Sea Hornet / Variant Summary


----------



## ppopsie (Nov 17, 2007)

One thing I would like to point out about the Mosquito is that its pure bomber version was not produced as many as the other versions like fighter, fighter bomber and recce planes.


----------



## renrich (Nov 18, 2007)

Dav, I believe your definition of a medium bomber based on useful load makes a lot of sense. I am voting for the B26 Marauder, giving it the edge over the B25 because of loss rate and higher performance.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Adler,
> 
> >I would not count the P-38 as a bomber at all. A fighter-bomber at the most. It was formost a fighter.
> 
> ...



Yes they were called Droopsnoots and they were actually pathfinders for overloaded regular P-38s carrying 2000lb of bombs. One of the Droopsnoots would lead the formation and then they would drop there bombs on the mark of the Droopsnoot.

Not very many were made and this still can not count as a "medium bomber".

Infact I dont believe any were actually "built". They were all field modified P-38J's and P-38L's.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

davparlr said:


> I think that 2000 lbs was more the normal bomb load. I am sure the loss of some 350 gallons of gas would have a significant impact on range.



You are certainly correct that 4000lb was probably not the normal load. That does not take away from the fact that it could...



davparlr said:


> With an empty weight of 14900 lbs and a max take off weight of 22400 lbs. minus 6000 lbs of bombs that leaves 1500 lbs of fuel and pilots, etc. Hmmm, that’s about 170 gallons of fuel. Can you start two merlins on 170 gallons? Actually, its probably less than one hour of flight, probably about half after start, takeoff and climb, and approach and landing (with no reserve!). Very little useful range. If you loaded a B-25 to gross and put on only enough full for one hours flight, can you imagine the load you could carry?



Why do you think I said I was not sure on that and for you all not to take my word for it....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Adler,
> 
> >*Basically a Medium Bomber can carry 3000lb+ of bombs. This ofcourse is what I am basing a Medium Bomber off of.*
> 
> ...



I have an idea for you...

Rather than sitting there and complaining about every aircraft that someone mentions or puts in the poll, *why dont you make all the polls from now on?*

Jesus Christ!


----------



## Marcel (Nov 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I have an idea for you...
> 
> Rather than sitting there and complaining about every aircraft that someone mentions or puts in the poll, *why dont you make all the polls from now on?*
> 
> Jesus Christ!



It's a hard job to create a good poll


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

I think it is actually a pretty good poll. There are just some people that would rather argue the merits of it rather than discuss aircraft.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 18, 2007)

It *is* a good poll IMO no worries. You can never have a perfect poll, always something wrong according to someone.
Damn, it's real hard to choose...


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 18, 2007)

The B25 and B26 served in both the Pacific and Europe, so we know for a fact how they performed in different rolls and dictated by the circumstances and realities of both theaters.

Now how would have the -88 performed in the Pacific? As a torpedo bomber it would have had quite a potential impact. Just like a Betty but with better defensive capabilities and airframe strength. But what about the skip bombing and strafing role? Theres no place to put all of those MG's or cannons in the nose without crowding out the crew members.

What about the liquid cooled engines that would be prone to damage (inevitable at low altitudes) and then having to work for a couple of hours getting back to an friendly airfield. Would that help or hinder operations?


----------



## HoHun (Nov 18, 2007)

Hi Adler,

>Rather than sitting there and complaining about every aircraft that someone mentions or puts in the poll, *why dont you make all the polls from now on?*

Actually, I'm not complaining about them but using your poll as a starting point for further research, learning something about the different aircraft types in the process, and sharing the information with others here on this forum.

I didn't criticize anything about your polls, and I certainly wasn't the only one discussing the definitions you used when creating thems. Discussing the definitions is actually a very good way to learn something about tactical concepts that might be considered self-understanding by some - but not by all - readers. 

I did never attempt to tell you how to run your polls, and I did never write anything (negative) about the quality of your polls either. Quite clearly I did never complain, and I feel that I did not even remotely deserve the kind of unfriendly answer with a lots of exclamation marks, use of irony and rethoric questions, and bold face text you have posted here and in the "Top Heavy Bomber" thread.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

You will get over it....


----------



## HoHun (Nov 18, 2007)

Hi Adler,

>You will get over it....

Please go back and re-read my posts, and you'll find that I never even made a single negative comment on your polls.

I don't intend to "get over it", I intend to get this misunderstanding resolved.

If you think I am responsible for this misunderstanding, you're invited to quote anything that looks like an attack on your poll, or like a claim that I know better how to run polls than you do, and I'm sure I can explain why it is not what you seem to think it is.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

No I am sure you will get over it. 

Good night, as soon as the last few min. of this football game are over I am going to bed.


----------



## machine shop tom (Nov 18, 2007)

I just tried to purchase a B-26 Marauder 1/48 scale model (Revell Germany).

It's out of stock.

Dang it!

tom


----------



## HoHun (Nov 18, 2007)

Hi Adler,

>No I am sure you will get over it. 

The thing I usually do if someone is treating me in a grossly unfair way - as you are doing currently! - is that I put him on my ignore list so that I won't waste time on his future posts.

I've not been on this forum for long, but my impression is that you are usually a rather nice and friendly guy who just doesn't belong on an ignore list. Please have a look at this thread again tomorrow and then simply tell me, by PM if you like, if you prefer to be added to my that list anyway or if we can stay friends.

I don't really see anything halfway in between, like "getting over it". Aviation is a hobby for me and supposed to be fun, so anything un-fun obviously is not attractive for me - and if I'm making the experience un-fun for you, we're both better off if we simply avoid each other.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (Nov 18, 2007)

machine shop tom said:


> I just tried to purchase a B-26 Marauder 1/48 scale model (Revell Germany).
> 
> It's out of stock.
> 
> ...


You can find both Revell and Monogram frequently on eBay - monogram better scale


----------



## drgondog (Nov 18, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Adler,
> 
> >No I am sure you will get over it.
> 
> ...




HoHun - you are a smart guy with little capacity for avoiding absolutes and a great capacity for putting people on ignore when they hurt your feelings. 

try to get over your self


----------



## Maestro (Nov 19, 2007)

Well, I always liked the B-25. It was rather fast and manoeuvrable (not as much as the Mosquito, though) and well equiped (if we're talking about the B-25J).

And I always liked the idea of having at least one gun in the nose, so you're not "defenceless" against an attacker... That was the weak spot of the earlier Marks of Mosquitos... No guns at all.

I still wouldn't like to take on a 109 in one of those babies, though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2007)

drgondog said:


> HoHun - you are a smart guy with little capacity for avoiding absolutes and a great capacity for putting people on ignore when they hurt your feelings.
> 
> try to get over your self



I just wish people would stop pointing out such small trivial mistakes on a poll. Mistakes people make about an aircraft thats fine because those mistakes need to be pointed out for the benefit of everyone.

I have the flu, I have a head ache and the only posts I see from someone is trying to dispell why every aircraft is on a poll. Sometimes it can be hard to make a poll off of the top of your head.

Oh well....

How are you doing today Bill?


----------



## drgondog (Nov 19, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I just wish people would stop pointing out such small trivial mistakes on a poll. Mistakes people make about an aircraft thats fine because those mistakes need to be pointed out for the benefit of everyone.
> 
> I have the flu, I have a head ache and the only posts I see from someone is trying to dispell why every aircraft is on a poll. Sometimes it can be hard to make a poll off of the top of your head.
> 
> ...



Chris - I don't have the flu and nobody is picking on me -

The flu sucks - I have been laid up three times (as an adult) in bed - twice for flu and the third time was the Stent op. I enjoyed the stent op more.

Get well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Chris - I don't have the flu and nobody is picking on me -
> 
> The flu sucks - I have been laid up three times (as an adult) in bed - twice for flu and the third time was the Stent op. I enjoyed the stent op more.
> 
> Get well.



It certainly is kicking my ass at the moment.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 22, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> I have to go with the B-25 fellas. But, with the B-26, Mosquito and Ju-88 in close second place.... I think taht we can also look at how many versions that was made of each aircraft...hard to beat the Mosquito and the Ju-88 there me thinks....



Hey does anyone know when the first production B-25's B-26's were made? I have seen Feb-April of '41 for the B-26. Was the first production for the USAF? I have also read that the B-25 was available earlier to the UK/France but that they bought the A-20 instead, so that N. American waited until it got an order to start making them. Is that correct?


----------



## drgondog (Nov 22, 2007)

freebird said:


> Hey does anyone know when the first production B-25's B-26's were made? I have seen Feb-April of '41 for the B-26. Was the first production for the USAF? I have also read that the B-25 was available earlier to the UK/France but that they bought the A-20 instead, so that N. American waited until it got an order to start making them. Is that correct?



Freebird - several sources have the B-26 ordered into production before first flight test - which was first ship on November, 1940. 

The first flight of the B-25 was August 40 and indeed it was offered to Britain and France but the A-20/DB-7 was chosen instead... 

The prototype without gull wing was flown in 1939(?) and the B-25A with this change was operational in late 1941 in squadron quantity.

Both were combat operational in Australia and New Guinea in early 1942 and of course the B-25 flew from the Hornet in April 1942 to bomb Japan.


----------



## Juha (Nov 23, 2007)

I voted for B-26, mostly because it did well in ETO after the catastrophe of the first mission. It was a difficult choice being Mossie and Ju 88 fan. But B-26 had clearly better defensive firepower than Ju 88 and it was more like traditional medium bomber than Mossie.

Juha


----------



## ppopsie (Nov 23, 2007)

Just a flyby....
I am holding B-26G or F model project for 25years. This is a conversion from Monogram 1/48 B-26B. Its still there. Me in front of a real one was taken at Chino airport in early 1998.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Nov 23, 2007)

mossie for me


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 23, 2007)

ppopsie said:


> .....Me in front of a real one was taken at Chino airport in early 1998.



I was at that airshow.

As soon as I get back from my trip to Minneapolis, I will post a pic of me in front of that B26!


----------



## machine shop tom (Nov 23, 2007)

drgondog said:


> You can find both Revell and Monogram frequently on eBay - monogram better scale



I was looking at getting one from Squadron so I could justify paying the freight on a $2 canopy for the Stuka model I am working on. Seems that the paint-removing hand cleaner I was using to clean up the canopy also melts plastic. 

I got a Do-335 (1/48 scale, Tamiya) to make it worth the order.

Back to the regularly scheduled poll/thread.

tom


----------



## machine shop tom (Nov 24, 2007)

Here is a site that has some nice pics of B-25 ground attacks:

P. 2 of U.S.A.A.F. Medium Bomber Groups, South Pacific, WWII

P. 1 of U.S.A.A.F. Medium Bomber Groups, South Pacific, WWII

tom


----------



## Elvis (Nov 26, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Because of the arguement in the Best Bomber thread I figured I would start this up.
> 
> What do you think was the Top Medium Bomber? *Now Top does not necessarily mean the best or anything like that.* I personally dont really like the "Best of" threads because each aircraft can be considered the best in something in most cases.
> 
> Well have a go at it...


I voted for the B-25.
History proved just how versatile that plane was.

However, what do you mean by "Top", if not "best"? (in our own opinions, of course).
I'm a little confused by how you're using the word "Top" in this case.

Also, the A-20, A-26, Mosquito and Beaufort were all considered "Light" bomber / Attack aircraft.



Elvis


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2007)

Top can be whatever you think it is. This is based on your opinion. You state why you think a certain aircraft is the "top" one.

For instance I think the top Medium Bomber is the Junkers Ju 88. It was probably the most versatile aircraft to see service in WW2. That is why I think it was the top aircraft in this catagory.


----------



## Hakenkreuz (Nov 26, 2007)

Der Crewchief,seine gesundheit wiedererlangen und es tut mir leid für gestern. First the Ar 234 was the most advanced bomber of it time, but for me the Brigand was best. It was an allrounder,Ground attack,bomber,torpedo bomber and fighter.Served for 15 years in the RAF. The name fitted the aircraft. The b-25 bomber,Beaufort torpedo ect. The Buckingham was obsolete even before it had flown. I also think the poll list is very good


----------



## Elvis (Nov 27, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Top can be whatever you think it is. This is based on your opinion. You state why you think a certain aircraft is the "top" one.
> 
> For instance I think the top Medium Bomber is the Junkers Ju 88. It was probably the most versatile aircraft to see service in WW2. That is why I think it was the top aircraft in this catagory.



Ah, I see what you're getting at now.
Ok, thank you for clarifying that.

Yes, I'll still stick with the B-25, for the same reason I gave before, although I do agree taht the Ju88 was also shown to be a very versatile aircraft as well.




Elvis


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2007)

Elvis said:


> I do agree taht the Ju88 was also shown to be a very versatile aircraft as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think it can be argued it was the most vesatile.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 27, 2007)

I don't see how Chris. Just draw up a list of tasks and compare it with the tasks of the Mosquito. 
Plus, one can also look at it from the perspective of actually excelling in its tasks. I mean, you can make the Ba.88 in 40 versions, right?

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I don't see how Chris. Just draw up a list of tasks and compare it with the tasks of the Mosquito.
> Plus, one can also look at it from the perspective of actually excelling in its tasks. I mean, you can make the Ba.88 in 40 versions, right?
> 
> Kris



I can think of only one task that the Mosquito could do that the Ju 88 could not and that was Carrierborne aircraft.

I never said it was the best at each role, I just said that it was the most versatile.

Just because there are 40 versions of an aircraft does not mean it can pull 40 different roles.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 27, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Top can be whatever you think it is. This is based on your opinion. You state why you think a certain aircraft is the "top" one.
> 
> For instance I think the top Medium Bomber is the Junkers Ju 88. It was probably the most versatile aircraft to see service in WW2. That is why I think it was the top aircraft in this catagory.



Yes it certainly was a very versatile design! And the fact that it appeared so early is something to be condsidered, the A-26 was a very nice aircraft but if you have to wait until 1944.....


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 27, 2007)

freebird said:


> Yes it certainly was a very versatile design! And the fact that it appeared so early is something to be condsidered, the A-26 was a very nice aircraft but if you have to wait until 1944.....



Gen Kenny of the 5th AF (and later FEAF) didnt like the A26 as a strafer/skip bomber.

The B25 was considered superior in that role.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 27, 2007)

I actually think the Ar 234 was the best medium bomber of all those on the list. The argument against will consist of small numbers and it had no effect on the outcome of the war...

...but the fact remains, for a single aircraft vs. single aircraft; the Ar 234C was the most advanced. It carried enough of a bomb-load to cause serious damage and did it faster than any of the others; making interception extremely difficult.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 27, 2007)

True enough it was the most advanced. But what did it do exactly, to effect the outcome of a battle or campaign?


----------



## Freebird (Nov 27, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> True enough it was the most advanced. But what did it do exactly, to effect the outcome of a battle or campaign?



It depends whether you think "Top" means "Best" or "Most Effective" He could be saying the Ar234 was "Best" and could have been very effective if there were more produced used.

Here's a question I have: Does anyone have stats on which of the Medium bombers was the best in DEFENSE against fighters? By this I mean if the bomber is operating without fighter cover and is intercepted by fighters, which bomber would stand the best chance of not getting shot down? 

I know that the Ju88, Do217, A-20, Pe-2, Havoc etc were fast enough agile enough to have fighter varients made, were the BOMBER VERSIONS of these any more defensible than say a B-25, B-26 or He111 or IL-4?


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 27, 2007)

_"Only one Luftwaffe unit, KG 76 (Kampfgeschwader or Bomber Wing 76), was equipped with Ar 234 bombers before Germany's surrender. As the production of the Ar 234 B-2 increased in tempo during fall 1944, the unit received its first aircraft and began training at Burg bei Magdeburg. The unit flew its first operations during December 1944 in support of the Ardennes Offensive. Typical missions consisted of pinprick attacks conducted by less than 20 aircraft, each carrying a single 500 kg (1,100 lb.) bomb. The unit participated in the desperate attacks against the Allied bridgehead over the Rhine at Remagen during mid-March 1945, but failed to drop the Ludendorff railway bridge and suffered a number of losses to anti-aircraft fire. The deteriorating war situation, coupled with shortages of fuel and spare parts, prevented KG 76 from flying more than a handful of sorties from late March to the end of the war. The unit conducted its last missions against Soviet forces encircling Berlin during the final days of April. During the first week of May the unit's few surviving aircraft were either dispersed to airfields still in German hands or destroyed to prevent their capture."_

Arado Ar 234B-2 Blitz

Easily the most advanced of the list it did see a fair amount of ops but it didn't have the effect on the war the B-25, B-26, A-26, Mossie or JU-88. Still technologically it was the best, operationally it lacks combat ops but still overall it is top 3 at least. (Mine would be A-26, Ar-234 and Mossie (Ju-88 and B-25 round the top 5)).


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 27, 2007)

Gnomey, why the A26?


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 27, 2007)

Fast, good armament, good weapons load, good service (into Korea), tricycle landing gear and I like it...


----------



## plan_D (Nov 28, 2007)

Thanks syscom, for saying exactly what I stated would be the response. The Ar 234 saw enough combat to be a proven design, it had no effect on the war, but having an effect on the war doesn't make a design - it's the design itself. 
There's very few aircraft that had an effect on the war, anyway, to name the few: P-51, B-29 and C-47. No other aircraft on their own had an effect on the war.


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2007)

Ar-234 for the same reasons as Plan_D stated.

The Ju-88, B-25 Mosquito are the top of the piston engined medium bombers.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 28, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I actually think the Ar 234 was the best medium bomber of all those on the list. The argument against will consist of small numbers and it had no effect on the outcome of the war...
> 
> ...but the fact remains, for a single aircraft vs. single aircraft; the Ar 234C was the most advanced. It carried enough of a bomb-load to cause serious damage and did it faster than any of the others; making interception extremely difficult.



Like the Me 262, the Ar 238 had the best performance - is that enough to be the 'Best or Top'? If selection criteria included tons of bombs dropped, or targets destroyed, or (if one could find it) amount of production or labor hours expended to repair damage, ... in other words material effect to enemy operations neither will fit when such criteria would be applied.

I agree it was a.) the Best in context of performance, b.) the Best in context of Potential, and c.) the bottom, or near last, of the list in context of contribution.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Nov 28, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Gen Kenny of the 5th AF (and later FEAF) didnt like the A26 as a strafer/skip bomber.
> 
> The B25 was considered superior in that role.



Syscom - there is no reason, operationally or performance wise, that the B-25 was superior to the A26A or B in any role... and certainly the B-25 was not considered as bomber in post WWII USAF while the A-26 contributed all the way through Korea, Bay of Pigs, Congo, Viet Nam..

What I am saying, is that as much as we all respect Kenney, I wonder about that statement and what his detailed reasons were? It's possible that something about PTO that made the B-25 more desirable for him but it shouldn't be 'skip bombing'..


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 28, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Syscom - there is no reason, operationally or performance wise, that the B-25 was superior to the A26A or B in any role... and certainly the B-25 was not considered as bomber in post WWII USAF while the A-26 contributed all the way through Korea, Bay of Pigs, Congo, Viet Nam..
> 
> What I am saying, is that as much as we all respect Kenney, I wonder about that statement and what his detailed reasons were? It's possible that something about PTO that made the B-25 more desirable for him but it shouldn't be 'skip bombing'..




The B25 (and A20 for that matter) had superior visibility for the pilots. The
A-26's nacelles interfered with the pilots vision. The B25 pilots said they wanted the B25's for the skip bombing roll for that reason.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 28, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The B25 (and A20 for that matter) had superior visibility for the pilots. The
> A-26's nacelles interfered with the pilots vision. The B25 pilots said they wanted the B25's for the skip bombing roll for that reason.



That has a ring of truth to it. in the ETO it was hands down A-26 because of speed and acceleration, although visibility was tough for any twin with R-2800s..


----------



## Civettone (Nov 29, 2007)

What's negative about the A-26 was its high landing speed which meant it couldn't operate from the same forward bases as the B-25, and the position of its engines which seriously limited the side view. 

My best bombers (for its own timeframe) would be:
1 - Mosquito
2 - A-20
3 - B-25
4 - Do 17
5 - Ki-67
and honorable mention for the CANT Z.1007.

Kris


----------



## plan_D (Nov 29, 2007)

Contribution has nothing to do with a design; the F-22 is the best fighter in todays skies but it hasn't made a single contribution to anything. The Ar 234 was a more advanced design, and a league above the rest of the medium bombers - making it the best.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2007)

Civettone said:


> 4 - Do 17



How do you come to this conlusion. The Flying Pencil was outdated by the time the Battle of Britain started. It was still successful during the Polish campaign because of the quality of most of the Polish fighters.

It was a good bomber during the Spanish Civil War where it was able to outrun its fighter opposition but by WW2 it was obsolete.

By 1940 Do 17 were being replaced by Ju 88s and the production ended.


----------



## Pflueger (Nov 29, 2007)

Newbie votes for the B-25, but would view the Ju-88 and Mossie as equally important regarding impact on course of the war (US bias made me pull trigger for Mitchell). 

I took "top" to mean the most relied upon dependable = the workhorse. Would agree that later appearing models (blitz, invader, etc.) were "best" designs, but they were certainly not the bread butter players.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 29, 2007)

Chris, the Do 17 performed wonderfully in the Battle of Britain, suffering lower losses than the Ju 88 or He 111. Its armament, range and bombload were sufficient throughout. It was also the cheapest bomber of the three, so costwise it was better than the He 111 or Ju 88.

It's also a myth that the Do 17 was removed from service to be replaced by the Ju 88. Production stopped because it was switched to the Do 217. 
_In fact, Do 17's can be found in a units strength list on all fronts right to the end of the war. 

Ending production also did not mean withdraw from front line. The last 17z rolled off the line in March1940, but the withdraw of the type from front line occurred one near later when losses exceeded the number needed for a division (Geschwader). They where then relegated to special operations or to equip allied forces (such as the Rumanians). _

I was doubting between the Do 17, 217 or He 111. But the Do 217 came a bit later and was a rather expensive bomber. The He 111 was too slow. All had a bigger internal bombload and a more effective armament than the Ju 88.

It's mainly based on Frantish's website: Dornier Do-17 Depot
Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 30, 2007)

Though the Do 17 was known to be able to take large amounts of damage and handled very well I am a firm believer that the reason the Do 17 suffered such lower loss's than the other bombers was due to tactics.

It is a fact that by the BoB the Do 17 was no longer the "fast bomber" that could outrun her opponents (neither could the He 111 or the Ju 88 but they did perform better) so she was just mostly in low alltitude tactical missions and later on (after the BoB) for special operations.

If she had flown regular bombing missions BoB and beyond she would have suffered higher losses, possibly higher than the Ju 88.

Just a theory however...

By the way that is a nice website however. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 1, 2007)

First, I don't see any reason why the Do 17 would have been used that way. Have not seen any sources on the Do 17 being used differently.
And second, in my book tactical missions over Britain would be even more dangerous than high altitude strategic missions. 
And third, the Ju 88 would have been more the tactical bomber.

So I would turn that theory around. perhaps the Ju 88 suffered heavier losses because it was used in a more tactical role and thereby suffering heavier losses. 

Glad you like the website! 
Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2007)

Civettone said:


> First, I don't see any reason why the Do 17 would have been used that way. Have not seen any sources on the Do 17 being used differently.



Go and read the website you gave me a link to. After reading that is how I came to my conclusion...


----------



## Civettone (Dec 6, 2007)

What section? 
The only thing I see related to your post is that the Do 17 was strong and well armored. (Yet it doesn't say the other two bombers were less.)

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Dec 7, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Thanks syscom, for saying exactly what I stated would be the response. The Ar 234 saw enough combat to be a proven design, it had no effect on the war, but having an effect on the war doesn't make a design - it's the design itself.
> There's very few aircraft that had an effect on the war, anyway, to name the few: P-51, B-29 and C-47. No other aircraft on their own had an effect on the war.


I agree that one shouldn't take the effect of an aircraft too much into consideration. 

And I love the Ar 234 but I think the only thing it had going for it was its speed. And that's all!! 
Armament was weak: no guns (that 20mm gun in the back was never installed) and a measly bomb load of 1500 kgs. That's half of the other German medium bombers!
Range very poor, only allowing it to be used as a tactical bomber. That was of course enough for the Germans but that's not important. It's the aircraft as such which is being evaluated not the role it performed (see above).
Reliability and maintainability poor for a bomber, comparable to the Me 262. If not, then the Me 262 would be the best fighter of WW2 without any shred of doubt.
One person bomber leading to bad situational awareness and already aggrevating the very restricted rearward view.

I love the Ar 234 because of the bomber which it COULD HAVE been. With the new HeS 011 engines and a second crew member it would have been a fantastic bomber. In WW2 it proved to be a wonderful reconaissance aircraft.

Kris


----------



## plan_D (Dec 7, 2007)

The fact that the Ar 234 was faster than its counter-parts made it more survivable, and a considerably harder machine to intercept. The idea of an unarmed bomber has been proven with the Mosquito, so the Ar 234 needed no defensive armament - that's 1930s mentality. 

As the Ar 234 was designed as a tactical bomber, and in this role it performed well. You compare aircraft in their ability to do their job, not their ability to do every job. The Ar 234 was a more advanced version of the Mosquito and the best medium bomber design of the war. 

Leave it up to the heavy bombers to carry the large loads, huge distances.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2007)

Civettone said:


> What section?
> The only thing I see related to your post is that the Do 17 was strong and well armored. (Yet it doesn't say the other two bombers were less.)
> 
> Kris



I will look it up when I get home from work. 

It might actually be a website I have saved in my favorites and not the link you gave me...


----------



## Civettone (Dec 7, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The fact that the Ar 234 was faster than its counter-parts made it more survivable, and a considerably harder machine to intercept. The idea of an unarmed bomber has been proven with the Mosquito, so the Ar 234 needed no defensive armament - that's 1930s mentality.
> 
> As the Ar 234 was designed as a tactical bomber, and in this role it performed well. You compare aircraft in their ability to do their job, not their ability to do every job. The Ar 234 was a more advanced version of the Mosquito and the best medium bomber design of the war.
> 
> Leave it up to the heavy bombers to carry the large loads, huge distances.


In my head I was also making the comparison with the great Mosquito B.IV. And like I said, I love the Ar 234 and I think it was the greatest bomber design. 

But ... the Ar 234 was not designed as a tactical bomber. It was designed as a reconaissance aircraft (E-370) at which it excelled. As a bomber it had insufficient range, bombload and reliability. Plus, it may have been fast enough to dodge fighters but at take off and landing it was a sitting duck.

For those reasons and the ones I mentioned in the previous post it cannot be the best bomber of WW2. The Ar 234C which was going to enter service in 1945 was a major improvement. 

Kris


----------



## Marcel (Dec 7, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Thanks syscom, for saying exactly what I stated would be the response. The Ar 234 saw enough combat to be a proven design, it had no effect on the war, but having an effect on the war doesn't make a design - it's the design itself.


I think the thread was "top bomber" not best and IMHO a "top bomber" wasn't nescesairy the best performing plane, but the one that did a great contribution to the war efford. Ar 234 might be the best one, but didn't have any impact at all, so is not "top" in my definition.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 9, 2007)

Civ:

_"But ... the Ar 234 was not designed as a tactical bomber. It was designed as a reconaissance aircraft (E-370) at which it excelled. As a bomber it had insufficient range, bombload and reliability"_ 

As a recon aircraft it was never reported by the Allied forces, making it an excellent platform for a bomber - it was not even seen! As a tactical bomber (Ar 234B + C, as you mentioned) the Ar 234 had the payload and range to be effective. The reliability issue is something that can be discussed forever, the servicability of a plane can be made good with the engineers on the ground. I make the comparison to the English Electric Lightning everytime because that plane had a problem everytime it landed but the 11 Sqdn. + 5 Sqdn. seemed to always have 12 of the 14 in a squadron ready to fly. 

_"Plus, it may have been fast enough to dodge fighters but at take off and landing it was a sitting duck."_

Here you are using the war situation for a bad point on the bomber design, that's not right. The design itself cannot be altered to defend itself while landing and taking-off, that's up to the ability of the defending fighters and anti-aircraft. All aircraft are sitting ducks during landing and take-off. 

Marcel:

_"I think the thread was "top bomber" not best and IMHO a "top bomber" wasn't nescesairy the best performing plane, but the one that did a great contribution to the war efford. Ar 234 might be the best one, but didn't have any impact at all, so is not "top" in my definition."_

Top means best, it's as simple as that. You're bringing this into an English language discussion; top is the best in the English language - so my point still stands. 

Now, for clarification, the Ar 234 (in my opinion) is the "top" (best) medium bomber of World War II. The B-25 (in my opinion) made the greatest contribution to World War II, as a medium bomber. The Mosquito made a massive contribution and did it better than the B-25 (in my opinion), so it's the best medium bomber with a large contribution.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2007)

Kris I apologize. I have not gotten to looking it up yet. Maybe at halftime of the game tonight.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 9, 2007)

Plan_D is correct.

The AR234 is the top bomber, technical wise. Good payload and a speed that made it near impossible to be shot down.


----------



## Elvis (Dec 10, 2007)

Did the Germans ever replace the skid with wheels on the 234?

Elvis


----------



## plan_D (Dec 10, 2007)

Yes, they did. I'm at college at the moment, but I have a book on the Ar 234 so I will put my answer in detail later on.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2007)

I thought only prototypes had the skid landing gear.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 21, 2008)

i want vote for Do 217 but there isn't.


----------



## Mk6lightning (Jan 21, 2008)

Hello all 
i'd like to say the invader .Fast ,agile,good bomb load and was that good they bought it back for so many other wars.
Tally ho chaps


----------

