# Best medium bomber of WWII?



## ShVAK (Aug 20, 2012)

The strategic bombers and fighters get more attention but overall considering all the important roles they were involved in I think medium bombers were my favorite aircraft class of WWII. 

I'm going with the A-26 Invader. Sure it was introduced to the war late, but it was a great aircraft that was fast, sturdy, a superb gunship and had a distinguished postwar service record. Also a real looker. The B-25 and Vickers Wellington are tied IMO for second. 

Choose yours!

[Sorry it's not a public poll, forgot to check the box.  ]

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Aug 20, 2012)

*Late War Period (1943 to 1945). Me-410A.*
High speed.
Long range.
Well protected against ground fire.
Like other dive bombers the Me-410 has exceptionally accurate weapons delivery.

*Prior to 1943. Ju-88A.*
Performance similiar to Me-410A except not as fast.


IMO the Do-217 doesn't belong on your list. Range/payload of 1941 Do-217 was similiar to 1941 B-17 and that aircraft is normally considered a heavy bomber.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 20, 2012)

It's weird, I've heard the Do 217 classed as both medium and heavy. The Germans referred to it as a heavy bomber based on its payload but it was a development of the Do 17 and used for similar roles. 

Didn't the Mosquito have a comparable payload in its unarmed "fast bomber" configuration to some Allied heavies as well?


----------



## R Pope (Aug 20, 2012)

Do you want the "best" or my favorite? I voted for my fave, the A-20, knowing it was not the best.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 20, 2012)

R Pope said:


> Do you want the "best" or my favorite? I voted for my fave, the A-20, knowing it was not the best.



I guess favorite, but with supporting info as to why it is your favorite and what makes it noteworthy.


----------



## davebender (Aug 20, 2012)

1943 model Mosquito had a payload similiar to 1943 model Me-410A. 4 x 500 lb bombs and it's my understanding the bombs were modified to make them more compact. 

Some late war Mosquitos were modified so they could carry a 4,000 lb "cookie" hanging partially out the bomb bay. I would hesitate to call that a normal bomber as it's good for only one thing - area bombing a city.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 20, 2012)

Surely looking at range, payload and survivability it would be hard to go past the Mosquito?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 20, 2012)

My personal favorite is the B-25, especially the versions with 14 machine guns, the "J" I think. I just think it looks like an a$$ kicker.

Otherwise, I would go for the A-26. However, I don't think it's fair to compare the A-26 with the G4M, He-111, or any of the "older" bombers. To me, that's like comparing a B-17 with a B-29. Just not the same really.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 20, 2012)

davebender said:


> 1943 model Mosquito had a payload similiar to 1943 model Me-410A. 4 x 500 lb bombs and it's my understanding the bombs were modified to make them more compact.
> 
> Some late war Mosquitos were modified so they could carry a 4,000 lb "cookie" hanging partially out the bomb bay. I would hesitate to call that a normal bomber as it's good for only one thing - area bombing a city.



The 500lb MC bombs had their fns shortened for use in the Mosquito. Tests showed that they were just as accurate as the long fin versions, so they became the standard.

The first Mosquito to carry the 4000lb cookie was the B.IV - the first production bomber version. B.IXs were also so modified, and all but a few of the B.XVIs were fitted with the bulged bomb bay doors from the factory.

Note that the bomb didn't hang out of the bomb bay - but the bomb bay was bulged to fit them.

There was also a 4000lb MC bomb.

The IX and XVI had the strengthened wing from the FB.VI and could carry 2 x 500lb bombs under the wings, in addition to the 4 in the bomb bay. Most were used to drop the cookie, however, and used drop tanks instead.

There was also a bomb carrier designed which could take 6 x 500lb bombs in the bulged bomb bay - the fabled Avro carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 20, 2012)

ShVAK said:


> a superb gunship



What does that have to do with being a bomber?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 20, 2012)

Comparing the Mosquito to the Amercan bombers is like comparing Ali to Foreman; it depends on whether you like brains or brawn


----------



## wuzak (Aug 21, 2012)

davebender said:


> *Late War Period (1943 to 1945). Me-410A.*
> High speed.
> Long range.
> Well protected against ground fire.
> Like other dive bombers the Me-410 has exceptionally accurate weapons delivery.



Like other dive bombers was the Me 410 easy meat to interceptors when not having local air superiority?

And was the Me 410 really a dive bomber, or just merely a bomber which could drop bombs in a dive?


----------



## yulzari (Aug 21, 2012)

Best at what? 

If we look at which were in production in 1939 as bombers and 1945 as bombers (I stand to be corrected) then the Wellington must be the choice. Still the standard medium night bomber in the Italian theatre in 1945. I have to say that it was partly due to lack of Warwick engines as the Warwick was expected to succeed the Wellington on the same production lines. They were designed at the same time but the Wellington could use existing engines Merlin/Pegasus/Hercules. Also Vickers were only geared up to make geodesic constructions.

Apropos of nothing and slightly usurping the topic; I wonder if a four Pegasus Warwick would have had a role. Why oh why didn't Bristol make a 2 row Pegasus like Alfa Romeo did and farm it out to contractors?


----------



## Timppa (Aug 21, 2012)



Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 21, 2012)

The object of ANY bomber was to put bombs on target ( or at least in the target area) will suffering acceptable losses. The more bombs (or tonnage) per loss the better and obviously more range per ton of bombs/loss is better. 

Losses could/would be from all causes. B-26 almost got canceled before it really saw action due to training losses. Better training helped, but difficult to fly aircraft, even of high performance may not be the best answer. 

Mosquitoes had high performance and low losses, they could provide precision strikes but tonnage carried was on the low side. Perhaps the precision made up for it. when using 4000lb HC bombs which upped the tonnage the precision fell off. 

Other planes had different trade offs, good at one thing, not so good at others. 

The "Best" is probably an all around airplane that does't really stand out in any one area. Planes that are exceptional in one area tend to be lacking in others. 
Like the Ar 234, fast and very survivable in the battle zone but bombing from 20,000ft and 400mph requires a might good bomb sight, especially for a single man aircraft. 1100lbs of bombs over a range of 970miles isn't so good either, A Blenheim could do better in 1939 although it had trouble with the surviving with acceptable losses part.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Aug 21, 2012)

I like the B-25 but you can keep all those heavy payload hogging machineguns.

R2600 engines gave the B-25 a decent power to weight ratio. That does good things for payload and aerial performance.
B-25 had excellent short / rough airfield performance. Exactly what you need when operating from forward area airfields. Low stall speed also improves bombing accuracy.
As far as I am aware the B-25 had no bad flight characteristics. 
B-25 had good range / endurance.
B-25 had a decent size bomb bay. 
I suspect the B-25 would have performed well as a torpedo bomber. If ony we had aerial torpedoes worth carrying. 
B-25 might also have performed well as a gunship if we had reliable automatic cannon larger then .50cal in size.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 21, 2012)

You're going too have to explain that "low stall speed improves bombing accuracy" statement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 21, 2012)

davebender said:


> Low stall speed also improves bombing accuracy.



I'm asking too...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Aug 21, 2012)

If you want to employ the B-25 for CAS and/or maritime attack then it will be attacking from low altitude and at relatively low speed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 21, 2012)

davebender said:


> If you want to employ the B-25 for CAS and/or maritime attack then it will be attacking from low altitude and at relatively low speed.



I don't think so...

First off stall speed has NOTHING to do with this. If you're attacking a target close to stall speed in a B-25, I hope someone has body bags ready. B-25s attacked maritime targets and NEVER flew slow. 

From Wiki..

_"The Mitchell crews developed a new technique called skip bombing. Flying only a few dozen feet above the sea toward their targets, they would release their bombs, which would then, ideally, ricochet across the surface of the water and explode at the side of the target ship, under it, or just over it.[17] Another technique was mast height bombing, in which a bomber would approach the target at low altitude, 200 to 500 feet (61 to 150 m), at *about 265 to 275 miles per hour *(426 to 443 km/h), and then drop down to mast height, 10 to 15 feet (3.0 to 4.6 m) about 600 yards (550 m) from the target. They would release their bombs at around 300 yards (270 m), aiming directly at the side of the ship. The Battle of the Bismarck sea would demonstrate that this was the more successful of the two tactics.[27] However, they were not mutually exclusive. A bomber could drop two bombs, skipping the first and launching the second at mast height.[28] Practice missions were carried out against the SS Pruth, a liner that had run aground in 1923.[29]"_

Battle of the Bismarck Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, the B-25 stalled at about 80 knots

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 21, 2012)

De Havilland Mosquito, to go along with the Mosquito fighter bomber, night fighter, photo recon... Sheer brilliance.

Favourites in the listed lot aside from the Mossie? Tupolev Tu-2: menacing looking machine with excellent performance, although appeared later in the war. Junkers Ju 88: classic Luftwaffe workhorse, a real jack of all trades, apparently nice to fly too. North American B-25: Three words - Doolittle Raid. Awesome.


----------



## renrich (Aug 23, 2012)

B26-fast, heavily armed, decent bomb load, could be used as a torpedo plane and had the lowest attrition rate of any US AC in Europe.


----------



## Kilkenny (Jan 26, 2021)

Ki-67 Hiryu... Way better than the B-25 or B-26 in almost every way... Almost as versatile as the Mosquito... I am surprised it didn't even make the list...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 26, 2021)

B-25. How wrong can I be?
Already picked the Mosquito for a fighter survey a while back.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 26, 2021)

What is in a name? The Lancaster and Halifax should have been medium bombers.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 26, 2021)

pbehn said:


> What is in a name? The Lancaster and Halifax should have been medium bombers.


.. and with cooler names.


----------



## Kilkenny (Jan 26, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> B-25. How wrong can I be?
> Already picked the Mosquito for a fighter survey a while back.


If one defines "best" to mean "impactful", then I absolutely, positively 100% agree with you! However, in most technical and operational aspects, the Ki-67 was superior (assuming an equal piloting skill level).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 28, 2021)

tyrodtom said:


> You're going too have to explain that "low stall speed improves bombing accuracy" statement.


How can a low stall speed do anything but improve bombing accuracy. 

For example, imagine a Fairey Swordfish at low altitude against a U-Boat, with a 40 knot headwind, or equal to the Stringbag's stall speed. The Swordfish can essentially hover over the U-Boat and drop its bombs or depth charges with pinpoint accuracy. You can't do that if the stall speed was 200 knots, for example.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 28, 2021)

While


Admiral Beez said:


> How can a low stall speed do anything but improve bombing accuracy.
> 
> For example, imagine a Fairey Swordfish at low altitude against a U-Boat, with a 40 knot headwind, or equal to the Stringbag's stall speed. The Swordfish can essentially hover over the U-Boat and drop its bombs or depth charges with pinpoint accuracy. You can't do that if the stall speed was 200 knots, for example.



I don't think it would be a good idea approaching a U-boat on the surface at near stall speed'
They had AA, and you're presenting them with a easy target.
If they crash dived, and got under before you got there, your low speed is just giving them more time to get deeper, and maybe turn.

That's why the method was to approach as fast as possible, maybe get to them before they could get under, or at least catch them while they was still at a shallow depth.
I doubt anyone tried your slow approach , even in a Stringbag.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kilkenny (Jan 28, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> How can a low stall speed do anything but improve bombing accuracy.
> 
> For example, imagine a Fairey Swordfish at low altitude against a U-Boat, with a 40 knot headwind, or equal to the Stringbag's stall speed. The Swordfish can essentially hover over the U-Boat and drop its bombs or depth charges with pinpoint accuracy. You can't do that if the stall speed was 200 knots, for example.


Aye Admiral!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 28, 2021)

I just looked at the results so far. I’m surprised the G4M hasn’t received any votes. I’m not a fan per se but it was a pretty effective bomber.


----------



## Kilkenny (Jan 28, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I just looked at the results so far. I’m surprised the G4M hasn’t received any votes. I’m not a fan per se but it was a pretty effective bomber.


If range is the overriding consideration, with early results/reputation considered, too. (Sorta like saying the Ju-87 Stuka was the best WW2 dive bomber.) The Ki-67 was better than the G4M in almost every other way.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 28, 2021)

Kilkenny said:


> If range is the overriding consideration, with early results/reputation considered, too. (Sorta like saying the Ju-87 Stuka was the best WW2 dive bomber.) The Ki-67 was better than the G4M in almost every other way.


No argument. I’m just surprised that Betty is getting no love. I’m no expert but didn’t the G4M accomplish more success than the Ki-67?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 28, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I just looked at the results so far. I’m surprised the G4M hasn’t received any votes. I’m not a fan per se but it was a pretty effective bomber.


Not really. It's one day of fame was on Dec 10, 1941 against Force Z. After that the G4M was a failure, where its lack of protection turned it into a flaming deathtrap. The only trick the Betty has is range.

Mitsubishi G4M - Wikipedia

_"On 8 August 1942, 23 IJNAF torpedo-carrying G4M1s attacked American ships at Lunga Point. 18 of the G4M1s were shot down. More than 100 G4M1s were lost at Guadalcanal (August to October 1942)."_

Range permitting, swap out the IJN Bettys with Mosquitos or Beaufighters and more will make it their targets, and back.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 28, 2021)

.. and now I know.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 28, 2021)

But still, the Betty wasn’t a flaming death trap until someone could field an effective air defense. 
I’m trying to find information on a Japanese attack on U.S.S. Lexington on February 20(?),1942. Was it a G4M formation that got annihilated?


----------



## Kilkenny (Jan 28, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> No argument. I just surprised that Betty is getting no love. I’m no expert but didn’t the G4M accomplish more success than the Ki-67?


Of course; but kinda like comparing the Spitfire II with the Spitfire IX. A lot of important, experienced Japanese officers (as well as aircrews) did in the "Flaming Betty".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Jan 28, 2021)

Not on the list but good candidate - P1Y Ginga.
Bombload small in comparison with Allied a/c, but typical for Japanese bombers.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jan 29, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Not really. It's one day of fame was on Dec 10, 1941 against Force Z. After that the G4M was a failure, where its lack of protection turned it into a flaming deathtrap. The only trick the Betty has is range.
> .



I don't want to claim the G4M is in the running for best medium bomber of the war (not that surprizing for an early war design), but claiming it was a 'failure' on all other days than the 10th of December 1941 seems a bit harsh.

However, as it was also forgotten or ignored recently in another thread, I find it worth mentioning that on that occasion it worked together with the G3M.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 29, 2021)

davebender said:


> I suspect the B-25 would have performed well as a torpedo bomber. If ony we had aerial torpedoes worth carrying.


I agree, given the right torpedoes the Mitchell will be deadly, especially with a dozen .50 in the nose suppressing the target’s AA.

















What other medium bomber packed this much forward firepower outside of a night fighter conversion? Mosquito with its 4x20mm and 4x.303 perhaps.


----------



## Kilkenny (Jan 29, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> I agree, given the right torpedoes the Mitchell will be deadly, especially with a dozen .50 in the nose suppressing the target’s AA.
> 
> View attachment 610626
> 
> ...


 Imagine what the B-42 could have done if (even with dated Allison V-1710's) Douglas started it a few years earlier (and went with one regular cockpit! LOL)

View attachment 610634


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 29, 2021)

torpedo bombers cannot act as their own AA suppression aircraft.
They need other aircraft, even of the same type but without torpedos, to do the AA suppression mission just before the torpedo planes reach the drop location. 

It is simply geometry. If the torpedo bomber with a 40kt torpedo is attacking a 20kt ship and drops from 1200 yds away, it has to be pointing at a spot in the ocean 600 yds in front of the target ship. Fixed guns have no hope of hitting the target ship before the torpedo is dropped. The torpedo plane (at least early war) has to fly a steady course so the gyros in the torpedo can stabilize.
No wild jinking or maneuvering, the plane has to be flying level and at the right altitude or the torpedo will not enter the water correctly, It could dive to deep, skip on th eserface, and/or even break into pieces. 

Adjust torpedo speed, ship speed and drop distance as you see fit but unless the ship is very slow or dead in the water the torpedo bomber needs to lead the ship (point ahead of it). 
A well armed plane or planes could certainly circle back and strafe a ship or ships in support of a 2nd wave of torpedo bombers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Jan 29, 2021)

'Best' is always the operative word in these questions: 'best' in terms of doing the best at what the airplane was designed for? That's probably the Douglas A-26 or Wellington. 'Best' in terms of success at roles that weren't foreseen when it was designed? That goes to the B-25 or Mosquito. To decide between the two, the OP would have to spell out how he would measure the best one - but then the result would fall out of the data with no discussion, and what fun is that?


----------



## Greyman (Jan 29, 2021)

Some cool art from Osprey's latest:





Sinking Force Z 1941


----------



## ClayO (Jan 29, 2021)

Greyman said:


> Some cool art from Osprey's latest:
> 
> 
> Sinking Force Z 1941



Cool picture, but see Shortround6, above.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 30, 2021)

Why isn't the Pe-2 on the list?

And how is a B-25 carrying a torpedo and a dozen 50's going to suppress flak before it gets near the ship?
Typical AA cannon ranges are well beyond the effective range of a .50MG and well within the torpedo release point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 30, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Why isn't the Pe-2 on the list?
> 
> And how is a B-25 carrying a torpedo and a dozen 50's going to suppress flak before it gets near the ship?
> Typical AA cannon ranges are well beyond the effective range of a .50MG and well within the torpedo release point.



Pe-2 is one of my favourite aircraft but isn't it more of a light bomber.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 30, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> Pe-2 is one of my favourite aircraft but isn't it more of a light bomber.


As designed, the Pe-2 could carry over a ton of bombs internally, but ended up wearing many hats (like the Ju88).

So I suppose it's on the light end of the list, the Yer-2 being on the heavier end of the spectrum, the Tu-2 and AR-2 falling in between.


----------



## Glider (Jan 30, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> Pe-2 is one of my favourite aircraft but isn't it more of a light bomber.


Its worth remembering that the RAF considered the Mosquito to be a light bomber, not a medium


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 30, 2021)

As used the PE-2 could carry four 100kg bombs inside the fuselage, and a single 100kg bomb in each engine nacelle.
Larger bombs were carried outside.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 30, 2021)

Greyman said:


> Some cool art from Osprey's latest:
> View attachment 610711
> 
> 
> Sinking Force Z 1941


This picture looks off. These torpedoes are clearly going to pass harmlessly astern of POW. Surely the IJNAS pilots know to lead their targets?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 30, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> As used the PE-2 could carry four 100kg bombs inside the fuselage, and a single 100kg bomb in each engine nacelle.
> Larger bombs were carried outside.



also as designed, was not capable to hold larger bombs internally. externally can hold 4x250 or 2x500

p.s. later was tested with some modification to carry internally one 500 kg or two 250 kg bombs but idk if this become production configuration, some russian speaking could be check, find number in a russian text is one thing understand the text in an other thing


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 30, 2021)

Glider said:


> Its worth remembering that the RAF considered the Mosquito to be a light bomber, not a medium



Context is everything prewar it might be considered a medium because it was capable of lifting 4,000 pounds. In fact it might be considered a heavy bomber in 1930.

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 30, 2021)

The original series (1 and 2) of the Mosquito were rated at 1,000 and 2,000 pound bombloads respectively.
It wasn't until the Mk.IV that a 4,000 pound bombload was incorporated into it's design - in 1943.

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Jan 31, 2021)

No love for the Betty? It had a huge range and it could turn into a fireball like an anime character!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 31, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The original series (1 and 2) of the Mosquito were rated at 1,000 and 2,000 pound bombloads respectively.
> It wasn't until the Mk.IV that a 4,000 pound bombload was incorporated into it's design - in 1943.



I know I was just using hyperbole there's a 2000 page thread of pure hyperbole on the p39 surely I am allowed one post 😂🤣

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 31, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The original series (1 and 2) of the Mosquito were rated at 1,000 and 2,000 pound bombloads respectively.
> It wasn't until the Mk.IV that a 4,000 pound bombload was incorporated into it's design - in 1943.



There was a 3000lb bomb load stage, 2000lbs inside the airplane (four 500lb bombs) and one 500lb under each wing. Performance with underwing bombs didn't suffer too badly.

The 4000lb load was the single 4000lb cookie, it could not carry 4000lbs of smaller bombs. It was not used operationally until 1944. 

I don't believe the British thought of the Mosquito as a general purpose bomber during the war but rather a special purpose bomber. Precision daylight strikes and pathfinder. 

The idea that the Mosquito could be a general purpose bomber and replace a large number of the 4 engine heavies may be a post war or even internet idea?
Correction welcome in the form of air ministry memos or letters/minutes of meetings.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2021)

What is a definition of a 'medium bomber'?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 31, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> There was a 3000lb bomb load stage, 2000lbs inside the airplane (four 500lb bombs) and one 500lb under each wing. Performance with underwing bombs didn't suffer too badly.
> 
> The 4000lb load was the single 4000lb cookie, it could not carry 4000lbs of smaller bombs. It was not used operationally until 1944.
> 
> ...


Towards the end of the war there was a new system which carried 6 x 500lb inside the aircraft, presumably they could also carry the 2 x 500lb bombs externally, but if they ever did I have no idea


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 31, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> What is a definition of a 'medium bomber'?


Smaller than a heavy bomber?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 31, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> There was a 3000lb bomb load stage, 2000lbs inside the airplane (four 500lb bombs) and one 500lb under each wing. Performance with underwing bombs didn't suffer too badly.
> 
> The 4000lb load was the single 4000lb cookie, it could not carry 4000lbs of smaller bombs. It was not used operationally until 1944.
> 
> ...





tomo pauk said:


> What is a definition of a 'medium bomber'?



I was thinking that myself. Isn't it more of a function or a role. The Blenheim carried out light bomber roles like Infantry support but also did medium bomber tasks like attacking the Ruhr.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 31, 2021)

In all seriousness, though, the definition of "light", "medium" and "heavy" bomber is rather difficult to define.
Different militaries had a wide range of requirements, each being defined in their own wording.
Many countries had single-engined "light" bombers, but this classification overlapped to twin-engined types, too.
Once into the "medium" bomber class, there were a broad range of types that not only had two engines, but several with three engines as well.
The "heavy" class, seemed to apply to four and six engined bomber types.

Then there was the wide range of bombloads across all the types, with no real limit between each...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2021)

The nomenclature chaged during the time, and each country have had it's separate nomencalture to begin with. Japanese called the G4M and other 'big' 2-engined bombers as heavy bombers.
My take is that this 'inquiry' needs to have the time span. Ie. what was the best 2-engined bomber between August 1939 and late 1941. Then - the best 2-engined bomber between late 1941 and fall of Italy. Etc. 
Granted, not ideal, but might work better than a top-list that spans over 5 ww2 years.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 31, 2021)

Just to be awkward I think the Mossie is in a category of its own. Best strategic light bomber that carried a medium bomber load from 1944.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Jan 31, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> The nomenclature chaged during the time, and each country have had it's separate nomencalture to begin with. Japanese called the G4M and other 'big' 2-engined bombers as heavy bombers.
> My take is that this 'inquiry' needs to have the time span. Ie. what was the best 2-engined bomber between August 1939 and late 1941. Then - the best 2-engined bomber between late 1941 and fall of Italy. Etc.
> Granted, not ideal, but might work better than a top-list that spans over 5 ww2 years.



Indeed, the number of engines does not change (mostly). While heavy/medium/light or long-range/middle-range or strategic/tactical/CAS - those definitions vary between the forces and countries and even within one airforce.
"Medium" B-25 became "long-range" in USSR.
Pe-8, the future backbone of planned (and never built) new strategic Soviet air force, was relegated to tactical tasks mostly.
Ju-88 was used in strategic bombing role in 1942-1943 against industrial targets in USSR.
The first raid of tactical and middle-range Pe-2 in the Black Sea was against Ploesti - the genuine strategic target located over 600 km away - which could be considered as "longe range" in the Eastern Front.
The only war assignment of strategic Tu-4 was to bomb a cinema house in Budapest in 1956 (canceled after the take-off).
Strategic B-29 was out of SAC in Korea.
B-52 has started its combat career in CAS role if I'm not mistaken?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 31, 2021)

It would be quite a challenge to create a clear classification between the types - the Japanese considering the G4M as a heavy bomber (with a bombload of roughly 1,900 pounds), while the P-47 could heft 2,500 pounds of bombs, leaves one to wonder how their classification was determined.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> It would be quite a challenge to create a clear classification between the types - the Japanese considering the G4M as a heavy bomber (with a bombload of roughly 1,900 pounds), while the P-47 could heft 2,500 pounds of bombs, leaves one to wonder how their classification was determined.



Light bombers = 1-engined types, plus the Ki-48 (880 lbs bombload)? Anything 'better' with 2 engines being the heavy bomber?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 31, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> The idea that the Mosquito could be a general purpose bomber and replace a large number of the 4 engine heavies may be a post war or even internet idea?
> Correction welcome in the form of air ministry memos or letters/minutes of meetings.


Well, it was a private venture, any documents would have to be before work was suspended and they asked for a turret to be put on it. In hind sight many branches of the allies could have used more Mosquitos but it wasn't clear at the time and there is a limit to precision bombing and also what a Mosquito could do.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jan 31, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> The idea that the Mosquito could be a general purpose bomber and replace a large number of the 4 engine heavies may be a post war or even internet idea?



The numbers were crunched several times by 'the brass' and the Lancaster was always the most efficient type in terms of tonnage dropped vs every factor.

The Mosquito was generally the closest to the Lancaster, but as pointed out in one of their papers:
_In order to put down the same weight of bombs in a given time it would be necessary to fly many more Mosquito sorties than Lancaster sorties and thus a considerably larger force would be required. This would lead to the need for increased numbers of aerodromes, maintenance personnel and pilots._​

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Feb 1, 2021)

Greyman said:


> The numbers were crunched several times by 'the brass' and the Lancaster was always the most efficient type in terms of tonnage dropped vs every factor.
> 
> The Mosquito was generally the closest to the Lancaster, but as pointed out in one of their papers:
> _In order to put down the same weight of bombs in a given time it would be necessary to fly many more Mosquito sorties than Lancaster sorties and thus a considerably larger force would be required. This would lead to the need for increased numbers of aerodromes, maintenance personnel and pilots._​


It would also mean the enemy would require many more interceptors.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Feb 1, 2021)

I believe the Japanese called the G3M and G4M (both 2-engine) "land-based attack aircraft" in their specifications, not as light, medium, or heavy bombers. The G5N (4-engine), on the other hand, was called a "large land-based attack aircraft" and was capable of carrying ~3.2x the load of the G4M.

I think if we are calling the Wellington (2-engine, 4500 lb bomb load) a medium* bomber, then the G3M ( 2-engine, 2000 lb bomb load) and G4M ( 2-engine, 2200 lb bomb load) should be considered mediums as well. The G5N (4-engine, 7200 lb bomb load) should be classed as a heavy. In the Japanese AC cases it could perhaps be said that the smaller bomb load was a trade-off for very long range.

*At the time of the development of the Wellington, the AM Specifications that led to its heavy counterparts (Warwick, Manchester, Halifax) only required an 8000 lb bomb load.


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 1, 2021)

I would have thought the Vickers Wellington:
1 It was there at the start of the war.
2 It had long range and high bomb load. So much so it pretty much outperformed the Shorts Sterling at long range.
3 It had good armament. (In theory 50 calibre guns could have been fitted).

-Aircraft like the B-25 and B-26 just weren't around in 1939,1940, 1941,1942 so although you might argue they were better in some way (certainly not speed, bomb load or range or toughness compared to Wellington) they simply weren't around. 

-The Mitsubishi Betty kept getting improved and final versions hand laminar flow wings and self sealing fuel tanks.

-Ju 88 is a funny one in that it was more of a light bomber but was famous for being an excellent dive and slide bomber, torpedo bomber, night fighter, pathfinder etc. As a medium bomber it wasn't much but it was these other rolls that made it extremely useful and it was there from 1939 till the end of the war . It's hard to imagine the Luftwaffe having a fraction of success with something else.

-The Do 217 is an interesting one having used guided weapons such as Fritz-X and Hs 293 it also became quite a fast bomber (347mph for the Do 217M) and might have been quite hard to deal with if the Luftwaffe had the resources for a larger bomber force.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 1, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Aircraft like the B-25 and B-26 just weren't around in 1939,1940, 1941,1942...


The B-25 and B-26 were both introduced into service in 1941.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 1, 2021)

Interesting factoid about the Wellington the Blackpool Squires Gate factory built one in a day.
Great little film


Edit, I have just found out that the film was made not at Blackpool but at Broughton in Flintshire N Wales. Apparently my Great Aunty is in the crowd as the aircraft taxies away. I have been told off by my cousin for getting the family history wrong 😳

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Maromero (Feb 1, 2021)

Ju 388


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 2, 2021)

Maromero said:


> Ju 388



The Ju 88 roots were very clearly evident. Speed 388mph/625kmh with a service ceiling around 46,000ft with the BMW 801TJ1 and speed of 407mph/655 kmh with the Jumo 213E1 using MW50. With the Jumo 222E/F a speed of 444mph/715kmh was estimated. There were two more advanced versions of this engine on the test bed: the BMWW 801TJ2 and the BMW801TQ

As far as I know EK388 flew very few 'evaluation missions with the Ju 388L, it almost missed the war. The last 3 piston engine combat aircraft on the Luftwaffe production program when the war ended were the Ju 388, Do 335 and Ta 152. The wanted to be an all jet air force but the jets just didn't have the range or airfield performance.

An interesting spin of from the Ju 388 was the 4 engine Ju 488. They lengthened the fuselage, used the tail and twin tails and remote armament of the Ju 288, added a wing section and engine of the Ju 388 inboard to extend the wing to give it 4 engines. The resulting heavy bomber had a ceiling of 48500ft with BMW801TJ engines and probably would exceed 50,000ft.

Almost neared completion and a test flight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 3, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The original series (1 and 2) of the Mosquito were rated at 1,000 and 2,000 pound bombloads respectively.
> It wasn't until the Mk.IV that a 4,000 pound bombload was incorporated into it's design - in 1943.



The series i and series ii were B.Mk IVs. The B.Mk IV series i had the short nacelles and the short span No 1 tailplane.

The series ii had the long span tailplane and the long engine nacelles that was common on all subsequent Mosquitoes.

Only 10 B.Mk IV Mosquitoes were built. They may have been restricted to 1,000lb only until the short tail 500lb MC bombs became available.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 3, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> There was a 3000lb bomb load stage, 2000lbs inside the airplane (four 500lb bombs) and one 500lb under each wing. Performance with underwing bombs didn't suffer too badly.
> 
> The 4000lb load was the single 4000lb cookie, it could not carry 4000lbs of smaller bombs. It was not used operationally until 1944.
> 
> ...



The "3,000lb bomb stage" came after the introduction of the universal wing, which coincided with the production of the FB.VI. This was in 1943.

Development to carry the 4,000lb bombs (4,000lb HC "cookie" and 4,000lb MC bomb) began in 1943 on the Mk.IV, and was applied to B.Mk XVI in production, after the first few were built. Not sure if the B.Mk IX had that conversion as well.

The maximum load for a B.Mk XVI was 5,000lb for short range missions - 1 x 4,000lb + 2 x 500lb on wings.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 3, 2021)

Glider said:


> Towards the end of the war there was a new system which carried 6 x 500lb inside the aircraft, presumably they could also carry the 2 x 500lb bombs externally, but if they ever did I have no idea



The "Avro carrier"?

In my (limited) research I have not found evidence of such a device.

However, I did find that there were plans to install a modified Wellington bomb beam into the Mosquito in order to increase the number of target indicators that could be carried. 

The beam would have allowed the carriage of 8 x 250lb target indicators (target indicators came in 250lb and 1,000lb) inside the bulged bomb bay.

Inevitably the Air Ministry asked de Havilland if 8 x 500lb MC bombs could be fitted instead. The answer was that the bombs would fit, but the CoG would have been too far rearwards, and made the aircraft unstable. Perhaps the Air Ministry should have advocated for the removal of the IFF....

Further enquiries were made to the possibility of carrying 4 x 500lb forward and 4 x 250lb aft on the bomb beam. But I did not see any reply to this suggestion.

Some Mosquitoes were modified from the 4,000lb model to carry a single 1,000lb TI (same size as 1,000lb MC). Fewer were modified to carry 2 x 1,000lb TIs, from memory these were all for 618 Squadron.

Fun fact: if Little Boy had been fitted with a British style round tail rather than the US style box fins, it would have fitted inside the Mosquito bomb bay with bulged doors. Taking off may have been a problem, though.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 3, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Only 10 B.Mk IV Mosquitoes were built.



you miss series I

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 3, 2021)

Vincenzo said:


> you miss series I



Correct. That should have read only 10 B.IV series i.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 4, 2021)

Milosh said:


> It would also mean the enemy would require many more interceptors.



Figuratively speaking, but they wouldn't have known that they needed them.

I'm a bit lukewarm about the idea that the Mossie could have been used as a strategic bomber instead of resources being wasted on four engined heavies. Once its performance became known, every Command and Ally wanted the Mosquito, which means that if Bomber Command wanted more, it would have to get in line. The other thing was that it would have been a waste of resources for the British _not_ to have built its four engined heavies and built more Mosquitoes instead - with everyone wanting them, the supply to Bomber Command might not have been able to have been sustainable. The question shouldn't be _could_ the Mossie be used instead of the big heavy bombers, but _should_ the Mossie be used...

Besides, it's worth remembering that only Britain and the United States were capable of building such a large fleet of big bombers and supporting them logistically and materially to the extent they did. Yes, other countries built four-engined bombers, but nowhere near in the same numbers as Britain and the USA. This might go some way in explaining how different countries defined 'heavy bombers'. To not build these bombers when the country could have would have been a waste. Even a fleet of Halifaxes and Stirlings, with all their faults was capable of putting a huge tonnage of bombs in a given area night after night. Strategic bombing of the kind that Britain and the USA conducted with its bombers required massive volumes of bombs all at once.



wuzak said:


> Fun fact: if Little Boy had been fitted with a British style round tail rather than the US style box fins, it would have fitted inside the Mosquito bomb bay with bulged doors.



Maybe, but with Little Boy's all-up weight of over 9,000 lbs, take off would have been a dicey prospect!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 4, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Figuratively speaking, but they wouldn't have known that they needed them.
> 
> I'm a bit lukewarm about the idea that the Mossie could have been used as a strategic bomber instead of resources being wasted on four engined heavies. Once its performance became known, every Command and Ally wanted the Mosquito, which means that if Bomber Command wanted more, it would have to get in line. The other thing was that it would have been a waste of resources for the British _not_ to have built its four engined heavies and built more Mosquitoes instead - with everyone wanting them, the supply to Bomber Command might not have been able to have been sustainable. The question shouldn't be _could_ the Mossie be used instead of the big heavy bombers, but _should_ the Mossie be used...
> 
> Besides, it's worth remembering that only Britain and the United States were capable of building such a large fleet of big bombers and supporting them logistically and materially to the extent they did. Yes, other countries built four-engined bombers, but nowhere near in the same numbers as Britain and the USA. This might go some way in explaining how different countries defined 'heavy bombers'. To not build these bombers when the country could have would have been a waste. Even a fleet of Halifaxes and Stirlings, with all their faults was capable of putting a huge tonnage of bombs in a given area night after night. Strategic bombing of the kind that Britain and the USA conducted with its bombers required massive volumes of bombs all at once.



I think that had the desire been for more Mosquitoes there would have a push for newer types with even more capabilities.




nuuumannn said:


> Maybe, but with Little Boy's all-up weight of over 9,000 lbs, take off would have been a dicey prospect!



As I said. Doubtful that the Mosquito could take-off at all.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 4, 2021)

wuzak said:


> I think that had the desire been for more Mosquitoes there would have a push for newer types with even more capabilities.



There was already a desire for more Mosquitoes as it was - the problem was there weren't enough to go round, which was my point - Bomber Command would have had to compete even if more were available than traditionally. As for newer types, developments of the Mosquito saw paper aircraft equipped with Napier Sabres, Griffons and even jet powered versions. de Havilland proposed the DH.101 with Sabres that was intended on being a heavy bomber variant and crewed by three people, but because of a lack of availability of the Sabre, Griffons would have to be fitted, but this offered little advance over the existing design and it was canned. The DH.102 was also to be larger than the existing Mosquito and powered by 60 series Merlins, but the existing Mosquito with such engines matched the DH.102's performance and load carrying capability and it was shelved.


----------



## Carrera2 (Feb 4, 2021)

I would say the Douglas A-26 bomber was best all around in some ways. Incidentally ,if you remember, later in its life the Air Force, confusingly, renamed this the B-26. We had one of these at Raytheon in the 60's that had been converted (by On Mark Engineering) into an executive aircraft and it was great!


----------



## P-39 Expert (Feb 4, 2021)

Acheron said:


> No love for the Betty? It had a huge range and it could turn into a fireball like an anime character!


One more Betty attribute, it could bomb from as high as 23000', with normal single stage engines. But still highly flammable.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 5, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> There was already a desire for more Mosquitoes as it was - the problem was there weren't enough to go round, which was my point - Bomber Command would have had to compete even if more were available than traditionally. As for newer types, developments of the Mosquito saw paper aircraft equipped with Napier Sabres, Griffons and even jet powered versions. de Havilland proposed the DH.101 with Sabres that was intended on being a heavy bomber variant and crewed by three people, but because of a lack of availability of the Sabre, Griffons would have to be fitted, but this offered little advance over the existing design and it was canned. The DH.102 was also to be larger than the existing Mosquito and powered by 60 series Merlins, but the existing Mosquito with such engines matched the DH.102's performance and load carrying capability and it was shelved.



I meant in terms of Mosquito type aircraft replacing heavy/heavier bombers.

One possible type in this vain was the Hawker P.1005, which was a handsome aircraft that relied on the Sabre engine. If an alternative engine could have been found it may have had more chance of going forward.

In the UK the only probable candidate to replace the Sabre was the Centaurus, which was running well behind schedule. The Griffon, Merlin and Hercules were probably not powerful enough, the Vulture had long since been dropped and the Eagle 22 and Pennine were a couple of years into the future.

American engines that may have fit the bill were the R-2800, R-3350 and the V-3420. The R-2800 may have still been a little light-on for power, The R-3350 was experiencing development difficulties and the V-3420 may or may not have been in development at the time, depending on the mood of the Army. It too had some development difficulties.

One wonders if a larger high-speed bomber needed in quantity would have required the use of 4 separate engines. Then the Merlin is more than capable.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 5, 2021)

Carrera2 said:


> I would say the Douglas A-26 bomber was best all around in some ways. Incidentally ,if you remember, later in its life the Air Force, confusingly, renamed this the B-26. We had one of these at Raytheon in the 60's that had been converted (by On Mark Engineering) into an executive aircraft and it was great!


The USAF reclassified the A-26 (attack) to B-26 (bomber).
Several if the USAAF designations were changed when the USAF became a seperate branch in '47 - most notably, the change from "pursuit" (P) to "fighter" (F) for example, F-51D, F-80 and so on.


----------



## Acheron (Feb 5, 2021)

What was the A-26 like compared to the B-25 and the B-26?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 5, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The USAF reclassified the A-26 (attack) to B-26 (bomber).
> Several if the USAAF designations were changed when the USAF became a seperate branch in '47 - most notably, the change from "pursuit" (P) to "fighter" (F) for example, F-51D, F-80 and so on.


And then they starting using (P) for patrol, such as the Lockheed P2V Neptune of May 1945.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 5, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> And then they starting using (P) for patrol, such as the Lockheed P2V Neptune of May 1945.


The Lockheed B-34 used by the USN was designated PV and PV1 during the war. The PV2 had enough modification made that it carried over to a "2".
P = Patrol
V = Lockheed
2 = third type in that designation

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2021)

wuzak said:


> I meant in terms of Mosquito type aircraft replacing heavy/heavier bombers.
> 
> One possible type in this vain was the Hawker P.1005, which was a handsome aircraft that relied on the Sabre engine. If an alternative engine could have been found it may have had more chance of going forward.



Ah, copy that wuzak, understand now.

The Hawker P.1005 was a contender for a potential fast bomber, but fell victim to that Mosquito magic, particularly with high altitude Merlins and it was predicted that it would not have offered any more than what the Mosquito could. That and the increase of resources devoted to the Typhoon killed it. The DH.101 was intended on being the heavy bomber version of the Mossie, but again, DH felt it was unjustified with the Mosquito's performance and load carrying capability being what it was. I can't forsee Harris having been too enamoured with the idea of replacing his heavy bombers with Mosquitoes, to be honest.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 5, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Ah, copy that wuzak, understand now.
> 
> The Hawker P.1005 was a contender for a potential fast bomber, but fell victim to that Mosquito magic, particularly with high altitude Merlins and it was predicted that it would not have offered any more than what the Mosquito could. That and the increase of resources devoted to the Typhoon killed it. The DH.101 was intended on being the heavy bomber version of the Mossie, but again, DH felt it was unjustified with the Mosquito's performance and load carrying capability being what it was. I can't forsee Harris having been too enamoured with the idea of replacing his heavy bombers with Mosquitoes, to be honest.


The P 1.005 is a British wonder weapon that should join the many German miracles that weren't built but had fantastic drawing board performance. It has a three man crew, twice the bomb load of the Mosquito, engines with a bigger frontal area and much higher consumption than a Mosquito but does everything better including being 40 MPH faster. Pure fantasy in my opinion.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 6, 2021)

Acheron said:


> What was the A-26 like compared to the B-25 and the B-26?



Faster, bigger bomb load, more maneuverable than either of those. Built as an attack plane, it benefitted from the gunship experience we gained with the earlier models.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 6, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Faster, bigger bomb load, more maneuverable than either of those. Built as an attack plane, _it benefitted from the gunship experience we gained with the earlier models_.




Not really, The mock up/s were inspected in April of 1941, early June saw contracts placed for a 3 seat glass nose attack bomber prototype and a 2 seat solid nose night fighter prototype. 
Late June of 1941 saw a 3rd plane added to the contract, a 3 seat solid nose ground attack plane with a 75mm cannon. The Army bounced back and forth between the 75mm cannon, two 37mm cannon and and all machinegun nose armament. 
While field experience may have helped decide on the all machinegun option the idea of using it as a straffer was well entrenched before any of the B-25s or B-26s were modified into gunships. The Army initially wanted all 500 of the initial order to mount the 75mm cannon, perhaps field experience helped change their minds?


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Feb 6, 2021)

Kilkenny said:


> Ki-67 Hiryu... Way better than the B-25 or B-26 in almost every way... Almost as versatile as the Mosquito... I am surprised it didn't even make the list...


It appeared in numbers (767 total) in the last year of the war ... by that time the work had been done by others, who deserve the fame.
e.g. Mosquito & Mitchel B-25

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Feb 6, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> torpedo bombers cannot act as their own AA suppression aircraft.
> It is simply geometry. If the torpedo bomber with a 40kt torpedo is attacking a 20kt ship and drops from 1200 yds away, Fixed guns have no hope of hitting the target ship before the torpedo is dropped.


The trainable guns (dome, belly, nose) can engage in suppression from beyond 1200 yards. After the drop the plane can bank and engage with all guns. If the gyros are "settable" then the torp can be dropped pointing at the target (meaning all guns suppressing from beyond 1200 yards) and the torp will turn to align with the gyros thereby pointing at the place the ship will be in when the torp gets there. Subs had to do this, so sub-launched torps had to do this, I don't know about air-drop torps.


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Feb 6, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Why isn't the Pe-2 on the list?
> 
> And how is a B-25 carrying a torpedo and a dozen 50's going to suppress flak before it gets near the ship?
> Typical AA cannon ranges are well beyond the effective range of a .50MG and well within the torpedo release point.


Merchant ships are as important a target as naval vessels, and many did "maru" the day the Mitchel dropped by.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 6, 2021)

But the B-25H/J gunships didn't need torpedoes to sink merchantmen, tankers, troop transports, minesweepers or even destroyers.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 7, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Not really, The mock up/s were inspected in April of 1941, early June saw contracts placed for a 3 seat glass nose attack bomber prototype and a 2 seat solid nose night fighter prototype.
> Late June of 1941 saw a 3rd plane added to the contract, a 3 seat solid nose ground attack plane with a 75mm cannon. The Army bounced back and forth between the 75mm cannon, two 37mm cannon and and all machinegun nose armament.
> While field experience may have helped decide on the all machinegun option the idea of using it as a straffer was well entrenched before any of the B-25s or B-26s were modified into gunships. The Army initially wanted all 500 of the initial order to mount the 75mm cannon, perhaps field experience helped change their minds?



The plane was built with a modular nose so that the change from glass to guns could be done easily in the field, no? That was, I think, the benefit garnered from our earlier experiences.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 13, 2021)

I had to vote Mosquito overall, but I have a few runners up worth mentioning.

Everybody had different criteria for 'light', 'medium' and 'heavy' bomber. I think for the US it had in part to do with altitude.

My criteria for a light bomber is (somewhat arbitrarily) something that carries about the same amount of bombs as a fighter bomber to a range not much greater than a fighter bomber can fly. These are kind of useless unless they are super accurate or deadly (i.e. dive bombers or torpedo bombers) or have a good survival rate, though with a navigator they could also be useful as pathfinders. A medium bomber is a plane that can carry more than a typical fighter bomber (often about 2,000 lbs) and carry it a bit further than most fighter bombers can fly (say close to 1,000 miles nominal range). A heavy bomber is something that carries a lot of bombs a very long distance (say closer to 2,000 miles) - to me there's only a few of those: B-29, Lancaster, B-17, B-24, Hallifax etc.

My criteria for what makes a _good_ bomber is different from most. Most people seem to believe whichever bomber could carry the heaviest load of TNT to the target area and drop it somewhere in the vicinity was the best. To me what makes a good bomber is destroying their target at a fairly high rate, i.e. not 1 or 2% of the time but 30 or 40% of the time (per raid, lets say). And mostly returning to base intact, as in, the majority of the squadron makes it back.

So by those criteria, the *Mosquito is by far the best bomber*. It could fly a long distance, with a moderate bomb load, quite often _hit the target _and usually fly back. That is a good bomber.

To me also, there were two criteria in WW2 which made a bomber survivable. One was speed and / or altitude, the other was guns (and armor etc.). Speed was better because it meant the bomber could do it's job without fighter escort. The heavy guns etc. only worked _with _a fighter escort. This was readily apparent not just with heavy bombers over Germany but also medium and light bombers (and some heavy) over the MTO and light and medium bombers over the Pacific (US heavy bombers could just about operate with impunity in the PTO, but they didn't do much damage until the second half of the war when the B-29s arrived).

*Runners up early war (1939-1942)*
For the early war, I like the A-20C, the Kawasaki Ki-48, the Nakajima Ki-49, the Martin 167 and 187, the Ju 88, the LeO 451, and the Pe-2

The A-20C was very fast for the early war, around 330 mph, with a high cruising speed. Small bomb load but with their good handling they could be used in fairly accurate low level attacks. Tended to make it back to base especially if flying with escorts or at night. They were useful for the Americans, the British, and the Russians, both over land and in a Maritime context.

The K-48, which looked almost exactly like a Hampden, was also quite fast, 314 mph, had armor unlike most Japanese bombers, had excellent handling, and very good range (1,500 miles). Very small bomb load of 1700 lbs / 800 kg and lightly armed, and it just seemed not to be made in very large numbers.

The Ki-49 was also fast (306 mph) and like the Ki-48, had armor and self sealing tanks (the Japanese Army seemed to figure out the need for this faster than the Navy). Power to mass (0.21) and wind loading (31 lbs) were better than most fighters. Bomb load was slightly better than the Ki-49 (2200 lbs / 1000 kg) and it was fairly heavily armed. They proved to be fairly vulnerable to P-40s though and not many were made (they were made through the war but production seemed to be at a very slow pace). I still think it was a good design with a lot of potential.

The Martin 167 "Maryland" and 187 "Baltimore" were very nice bombers, the 167 counting probably as a light bomber more ideal for recon, though it was used in the medium bomber role (attacking Axis airfields etc.). The Maryland could do 304 mph and had a 1,300 mile range, with some substantial forward armament and good performance and maneuverability (wing loading 28.5 lbs, power / mass 0.157) only carried 2,000 lbs of bombs. There was even an Ace flying Marylands, the marvelous eccentric Englishman Adrian Warburton who was unfortunately killed in action in 1944.

The Martin 187 / Baltimore, another of the "airforce that could have been- Le sigh" which was supposed to go to France, was a really scrappy little plane which n my opinion, is the aircraft that the B-26 was trying to be and should have been. It had the same speed and power as a Maryland, though a higher wing loading. It became effectively a British plane, produced by the Americans but to British specs (and sometimes modified by the Brits in the field), and rather than loading it down with ten machine guns, 7 crew, and all kinds of other stuff they didn't really need, they up-gunned it just enough with a .50 cal dorsal turret. It carried a small (2000 lbs) bomb load, but seemed to be able to bomb accurately. More valuable though was that it had a very high survival rate, once they were being escorted by fighters, it had the best survival rate in the MTO. Part of the secret was apparently speed. The Baltimore airframe was apparently very stable and vibration -free at high speeds. After they attacked their target (often an Axis air base) they would go into a high speed shallow dive and fly away at as much as 400 mph, while their escort mixed it up with the 109s and 202s. Post war they were used for high mach number dive testing. The main downside of this aircraft is they were hard to fly, requiring substantial skill for takeoffs especially.

The Ju 88 of course, I don't have to introduce or explain. They did poorly in the BoB and seemed to take a while to find their legs. They couldn't really use them as true dive bombers (after while they realized that the wings were getting bent in the steep dive pull-outs) but even as a 'glide bomber' they seemed pretty accurate, and their performance was good enough to often evade older fighters like Hurricanes and Fulmars. They seemed to excel in the maritime role. Made good heavy fighters and night fighters too as we know.

The Pe 2 also impresses me with it's accuracy and fairly high survival rate (at least by the dismal standards of the Russian Front). It wasn't as good as a mosquito by any means but it seemed to hit relatively small targets like German flak guns on a fairly routine basis. It could dive bomb, it was fast (330-340 mph) and carried a decent payload for such a fast plane (2200 lbs / 1000 kilo). I'd like some of these in my air armada if I had a choice.

LeO 45 gets honorable mention. Quite fast for 1940 at 308 mph, and somewhat heavily armed with a 20mm defensive cannon. There must have been something good about it because the Germans took at least a mild interest in it.

I like the B-25 too of course. It proved very versatile in both the MTO and Pacific, and was equally good at smashing up German airfields or sinking Japanese ships. But it wasn't that fast and at least against the Germans, it really needed fighter escorts to have a good survival rate. It's size and relatively slow speed precluded it from being used that much over Northern Europe, due to the ferocity of German light-AA.

*Runners up late war (1943-1945)*
For the late war, I like the A-20G, the A-26, the Ki-67, the Tu-2

I think the A-20G may be a pretty good rival to the A-26, it's a very thorough upgrade of the A-20 and was available a lot earlier. 325 mph, good power to mass (for a bomber), twin .50s in the dorsal turret, 6 x .50s in the nose cone. They were quite devastating against the Japanese. They liked them better than the A-26 in the Pacific apparently because they had better visibility from the cockpit. A-26 was faster though, at ~ 350 mph (nominally) it was the only other Allied bomber I know of which even comes close to the Mosquito. They were used with some success from Italy and in the Balkans. Quite heavily armed too and relatively small. The only real flaw was that it came late (fall 1944 in Europe) in relatively small numbers.

Honorable mention goes to the Ar 234 - ingenious design and quite beautiful to look at, though slower with bombs on I think and was barely in the war. Ju 388 also beautiful aircraft, and I have read some accounts by Allied pilots describing spotting them but being unable to catch them as they were seen pulling away with their Mw/50 or Nitro or whatever. Maybe some of those crews survived the war thanks to that.

EDIT: Amended light bombers per feedback -

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 13, 2021)

Schweik said:


> A medium bomber is a plane that can carry more than a typical fighter bomber (often about 2,000 lbs) and carry it a bit further than most fighter bombers can fly (say close to 1,000 miles nominal range).


I‘d like to add the benefit of a co-pilot or navigator. A P-47 or P-38 fighter can carry more than 2,000 lbs. of bombs to ranges matching smaller medium bombers. A good medium bomber needs someone else onboard to share the workload.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 13, 2021)

Schweik said:


> To me also, there were two criteria in WW2 which made a bomber survivable. One was speed and / or altitude, the other was guns (and armor etc.).


I suggest adding agility. It helped Mosquito in encounters with Me 262, Su-2 under attacks of Bf 109, D3A, etc.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 13, 2021)

Schweik said:


> The Pe 2 also impresses me with it's accuracy and fairly high survival rate (at least by the dismal standards of the Russian Front). It wasn't as good as a mosquito by any means but it seemed to hit relatively small targets like German flak guns on a fairly routine basis. It could dive bomb, it was fast (330-340 mph) and carried a decent payload for such a fast plane (2200 lbs / 1000 kilo).



I'm not sure that Pe-2 demonstrated better accuracy than (for example) A-20.
330 mph - just one of the earlier versions (series 31, I think). Empty, of course.
Dive bombing - a minority of pilots could do that even in 1944. Probably, there was no regular dive-bombing in Pe-2 until Ivan Polbin took the matter in his hands in 1943.
1000 kg - probably just as an exception. 600 kg was the typical bomb load.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 13, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Honorable mention goes to the Ar 234 - ingenious design and quite beautiful to look at, though slower with bombs on I think and was barely in the war



According to this book, KG76 operating Ar 234 from Dec 1944 has lost 16 a/c (14-fighters, 2-AAA, 2-unknown) in 455 flights. Probably the best survivability rate among all LW bomber units?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 13, 2021)

Yeah those are all good points. Agility definitely does matter - aside from the Mosquito it seemed to help the Stuka, the D3A, the SBD, and the A-20. Though I would still say speed and /or altitude matters more. Co-pilot or (especially I think) navigator also does make a big difference. Light bombers like the Maryland and Hudsons were often used as pathfinders for other bombers or even fighters.

Dive bombing may have been somewhat rare in Pe-2s, it wasn't as common as you might think with even SBDs (only the Navy pilots seemed to know how to do it) but so far as I know, they never did it in A-20s, and not everybody did the nap of the earth / masttop / skip bombing either. I seem to remember some German accounts of Pe 2 attacks with rather eyebrow raising precision earlier than 1943 but I'd have to go double check.

LW bombers generally didn't have the greatest survival rate in the West or MTO, though I think they did a lot better in the East. However that said, I know some Stuka units managed to keep casualties pretty low by a variety of means (including dropping their bombs and running at the first sign of Allied fighters)


----------



## Schweik (Feb 13, 2021)

The Ki-48 and Ki-49 were also supposed to be highly agile, as was the Maryland and the Lockheed Hudson which survived some duels with A6M. Any other highly agile light or medium bombers I missed?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 13, 2021)

Schweik said:


> The Ki-48 and Ki-49 were also supposed to be highly agile, as was the Maryland and the Lockheed Hudson which survived some duels with A6M. Any other highly agile light or medium bombers I missed?



Ki-48 should be agile - it was small-ish for a 2-egined bomber (size about Bf-110, granted with deeper fuselage), it was light, and bombload (400-500 kg max, unless in Kamikaze set-up) was very light.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 13, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Ki-48 should be agile - it was small-ish for a 2-egined bomber (size about Bf-110, granted with deeper fuselage), it was light, and bombload (400-500 kg max, unless in Kamikaze set-up) was very light.



Yes I think it had a much better power to weight and wing-loading than a 110 as well


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 13, 2021)

For the PE-2 the bomb load was 600kg internal. Six 100kg bombs, two of which were the engine nacelles.
The 1000 kg load was external, four 250 kg bombs or two 500kg bombs
At which point speedand range depart from most published numbers.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 13, 2021)

That is true for many if not most WW2 light and medium bombers. And speed picks up again after they drop the bombs


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 13, 2021)

Trouble is that most bomber vs fighter combats were not "Mano a Mano" but most often formation vs formation, at least to start. 
Bomber formations, for most mutual protection (or hoping the fighters shoot at the plane just off your wing tip) have to stay together and that means flying at best cruising speed of the slowest aircraft in the formation minus a fudge factor for maneuvering. As in formation makes a 30 degree turn to the right. Plane/s on the left side of the formation have to speed up to maintain formation (or right side planes slow down), If they don't have enough surplus power they will get left behind at least for a few minutes and we know what happens to stranglers. 

Yes, even in the BoB a number of bombers got separated from their formation/s and were attacked as single aircraft. But depending on high speed dashes usually means small formations. 

Point on the PE-2 was that it is often overrated due to the bomb load and claimed speed. It did do a lot of good work for the Soviets but it wasn't flying at 330mph with 1000kg of bombs. 

SOme of these aircraft had pretty miserable defensive armament. Japanese in particular had some extremely poor setups. 
Some of their bombers also have split personalities. There were often major difference between the early versions and the later versions. 

Ki-48 Is used an engine with a single speed supercharger (1000hp for take off and 980hp at 9,845ft) and speed was 298mph at 11,485 ft. 
Normal bomb load was 300kg (six 50 kg bombs) and the defensive armament was dismal, one 7.7mm machime gun out the nose, one out the top back and one out ventral position.
However these among the worst machine guns used by a major power in WWII, cycle rate 750rpm anda 69 round drum/pan magazine. A Vickers K gun fired at 1000rpm and used a 96 shot drum/pan for example.
The KI 48 I had no armor and no fuel tank protection. 
The KI 48 II (production start April 1942) got an engine with 2 speed supercharger, 1130hp for take off, 1070 hp 9,185 ft and 950hp at 18,375 ft. However the empty weight went up about 500kg (12%) with the stronger construction, armor, protected tanks and better equipment. Normal bomb load went to 800kg. Max bomb load went from 400kg to 800kg. 
By 1943 the KI 48 had two of those poor machine guns in the nose, one still in the ventral position and single 12.7mm Type I MG in the dorsal position. 

The KI 49 was a dog, Crews thought the KI 21 flew better. Defensive armament was poor, five of those poor 7.7mm machine guns in the nose, ventral, tail and beam positions with a single 20mm cannon in the dorsal position.......however..................the Japanese army 20mm Ho-1 cannon while fairly powerful, had a slow rate of fire (400rpm) and was feed from 15 round drums when used in flexible mounts (about 2 seconds of firing time).
The KI 49 I was another plane powered by engines with a single speed supercharger. It did have armor and protected tanks from the start but using an eight man crew to deliver a normal bomb load of 750kg and a max of 1000kg seems like a pretty poor return. 
The KI 49 II got more powerful engines, and the nose, ventral and tail guns were replaced by 12.7mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns. But it doesn't start to leave the factory until Sept of 1942.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 14, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Trouble is that most bomber vs fighter combats were not "Mano a Mano" but most often formation vs formation, at least to start.
> Bomber formations, for most mutual protection (or hoping the fighters shoot at the plane just off your wing tip) have to stay together and that means flying at best cruising speed of the slowest aircraft in the formation minus a fudge factor for maneuvering. As in formation makes a 30 degree turn to the right. Plane/s on the left side of the formation have to speed up to maintain formation (or right side planes slow down), If they don't have enough surplus power they will get left behind at least for a few minutes and we know what happens to stranglers.



Yes, especially if they are relying on their guns etc. to any extent, they typically do need to be in formation so they can concentrate their firepower. However for less well armed and protected bombers this was pretty cold comfort, and in fact turned out to be worse than evading on their own. That is how it went with many aircraft that relied on agility to some extent to survive - for example Stukas got slaughtered flying in formation in the BoB, but did better in the MTO and Russia by evading wildly with sharp twisting turns, and using tricks like making smoke as they dived away. Many bombers that came into the target area in formation left in a much more chaotic way. This was also true for D3As and SBDs quite often in the Pacific, and for fighter bombers as well.



> SOme of these aircraft had pretty miserable defensive armament. Japanese in particular had some extremely poor setups.
> Some of their bombers also have split personalities. There were often major difference between the early versions and the later versions.
> 
> Ki-48 Is used an engine with a single speed supercharger (1000hp for take off and 980hp at 9,845ft) and speed was 298mph at 11,485 ft.
> ...



A dog compared to what precisely? We are talking early war, right? JAAF pilots may have preferred the light as a feather Ki-21, but neither the Ki-48 and 49 were "dogs" by the standards of the early war, and an armament of 3-5 x LMG was pretty standard for bombers in 1940-42. Having a 12.7 or 20mm dorsal gun was a pretty good step up.

Why don't we take a closer look at this with one of those charts I like to put together. This is just going to be mostly pulled from Wikipedia since it's after midnight and I need to go to bed, so don't crucify if any of this is slightly off. I think this is a fairly comprehensive list of other light and medium 2 engine bombers active before 1943. I only left out the other outliers I mentioned above.

Anyway, lets compare a few types contemporaneous to the Ki-48 and 49

*Bomber ------------ Speed --Cruise Spd--- Ceiling ---- Range ---- Guns ------------------- Bomb Load*
Bristol Blenheim IV--- 260 ------198--------- 27,000 ------1460 ---- 4-5 x LMG --------------- 1200 lbs (dorsal turret)
Handley P. Hampden-247-------206--------- 19,000 ------1720 ---- 3-5 x LMG --------------- 4000 lbs (the LMGs are Vickers K guns with 60 round mags)
Armstr. W. Whitley----230 ------ ??? ---------26,000 ------1650-----4 x LMG ------------------3000 lbs (turret in tail)
Vickers Wellington IC-235 ------ ??? ---------18,000 ------ 2500-----6 x LMG ----------------- 4500 lbs (turret in tail and nose)
Tupolev SB------------280 ------???--------- 30,000 ------ 1400 ---- 4 x LMG ----------------- 1320 lbs
Illyushin DB3 --------- 273 ------??? ---------31,000 ------ 2400 ---- 3 x LMG, 1 x 20mm ----- 5500 lbs
Illyushin IL-4---------- 250 ------ ?? --------- 28,500 ------ 2400 ---- 2 x LMG, 1 HMG--------- 6000 lbs
Fiat BR 20------------- 270------ 210 -------- 26,000 ------ 1710 ---- 3 x HMG ---------------- 3500 lbs (dorsal turret)
Do-17Z ---------------255 ------ 190-------- 26,000 ------- 628 ----- 6 x LMG ----------------- 2200 lbs
HE 111H-6------------ 270------ 230 -------- 21,300 ------ 1400---4 x LMG 1 x 20mm, 1 HMG-4400 lbs
Ju 88 A4 -------------- 290 ------230 -------- 26,900 ------ 1100 -----5 x LMG ----------------- 3000 lbs (could carry more bombs at short range)
Lockheed Hudson---- 246 ------220 -------- 25,000 ------ 1960 ----- 2 x LMG ---------------- 1400 lbs (also has 2 x fixed forward LMG guns)
N. American B-25C--- 284 ------233 -------- 21,000 ------ 1500 -----1 x LMG, 4 x HMG ------ 3000 lbs
Mitsubishi G3M ------ 233 ------ 170-------- 30,200 ------ 2700 -----1 x 20mm, 4 x LMG ----- 1800 lbs (or a torpedo)
Mitsubishi G4M ------ 266 ------ 196-------- 28,000 -------1700---- 1x 20mm, 4 x LMG------- 2204 lbs (or a torpedo)
Mitsubishi Ki-21 -IIb- 301 ------ 240 ------- 33,000 -------1700---- 1 x HMG, 4 x LMG ------- 2200 lbs

Kawasaki Ki-48-IIa --- 314-------??? --------- 33,100 ------ 1500 ----3 x LMG ----------------- 1764 lbs
Nakajima Ki-49-IIa ---306------ 220 --------- 30,500 -------1200 ---- 5 x LMG, 1 x 20mm -----2200 lbs
Nakajima Ki-49-IIb ---------------------------------------------------- 2 x LMG, 3 x HMG, 1 x 20mm-----

So based on the above, I would conclude the following:

Ki 84 and 49 are both outstanding in speed, extremely fast compared to most contemporaries. Both have unusually high service ceiling. I'd say performance looks good and I don't see a dog here - unless maybe a grayhound. Range is about average to low (but still pretty good). Armament of the Ki-48 is slightly below average, but within the typical range. Armament for the Ki-49 is quite good, especially the IIb version (available in 1942). Only the B-25 and maybe the He 111 was more heavily armed.

It's also worth pointing out, one of the least well armed aircraft on the list above, the Lockheed Hudson, was notoriously difficult to shoot down because it was agile, had forward firing guns, and apparently the defensive guns they did have were effective. Light armament does not always equate to extreme vulnerability. Bomb load is low but I already stipulated that. They didn't need to carry huge bomb loads as they were not "de-housing" cities or anything like that.


*One more thing I wanted to add, the G4M "Betty"* did not have a single flash in the pan with the sinking of the Repulse and the Prince of Wales, they continued to harass Allies air bases around Port Moresby and in the Solomons and were part of the ongoing raids against Darwin, taking good advantage of their relatively high altitude performance and excellent range to continue to plague the Allies with strike after strike. I don't think you could call them a failure. Most twin-engined bombers in WW2 proved to have fairly high attrition rates, this includes the ones we think of as good like the Ju 88 or the B-25.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Feb 14, 2021)

The Mosquito for me as the concept was the way of the future (unarmed fast bomber).


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 14, 2021)

I can appreciate the work that goes into making such a list, 

However we are back to Wiki often listing the maximums in some categories. 
and sometimes not. 
The Whitley for instance could carry 7000lb of bombs just not anywhere near 1650 miles. It could however hold that 7000lbs all internal. It also had five guns not four. 
The Whitley was more of a two heavy than a medium bomber however. 
Not all LMGs were created equal. 
Japanese Army LMG, 750rpg, 69 round pan magazine.
British Vickers K gun 1000rpm 96 (not 60) round pan magazine.
British .303 Browning 1200rpm belt feed 
Russian ShKAS 7.62mm 1800rpm belt feed. But the belt boxes/feeds seldom held more than 200 rounds. Boxes could be changed. 
German 7.92mm MG 15, 1000rpm 75 round saddle drum
Japanese Navy LMG, a clone of the WW I Lewis gun 600 rpm and 47 or 97 round pan magazines. 

On the JU 88 one gunner was responsible for three guns and on the Do 17Z one gunner was responsible for 4 guns. Not quite the firepower the numbers would indicate. 

For the British, the Hudson managed to have good survival rate in part due to it's propellers. Most of the Hudsons except the first few hundred had fully feathering props which meant the plane was much more likely to make it home on on one engine. Putting the prop on a dead engine to coarse pitch on a two pitch prop wasn't anywhere near the reduction in drag, even if the propeller brake worked. ANd having the choice of either fine pitch (take-off) or coarse pitch (high speed) didn't give the pilot a good choice for a high power low speed cruise on one engine, some of these planes wouldn't stay in th eair on one engine. at least not for long.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 14, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> 
> Ki-48 Is used an engine with a single speed supercharger (1000hp for take off and 980hp at 9,845ft) and speed was 298mph at 11,485 ft.
> Normal bomb load was 300kg (six 50 kg bombs) and the defensive armament was dismal, one 7.7mm machime gun out the nose, one out the top back and one out ventral position.
> ...



Japanese Wikipedia lists 300kg max (early - I?) up to 500 (-II? version) for the Ki-48. TAIC manual (available on this site) lists 400 kg (880 lbs) for the -II.
Seems to me that only time Ki-48 carried the stipulated 800 kg of bombs was if there was to be one-way mission.


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 14, 2021)

Can I suggest an arbitrary and capricious rule to split light bomber from medium. A medium should be a twin engine and needs a bomb sight and a dedicated crewman to operate it. If it's got a solid nose stuffed with guns it's a light bomber.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 14, 2021)

What if it has a gun-nose and carries 4,000 lbs of bombs? What if the gun nose is made modular so you can swap it out in the field for a bombardier nose?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 14, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> I can appreciate the work that goes into making such a list,
> 
> However we are back to Wiki often listing the maximums in some categories.
> and sometimes not.
> ...



Right, but I figure people can fill in some of the blanks. Point being that he Ki-48 isn't a whole lot worse armed than a Do 17 or an early Ju 88... or a Whitley or a Hampden etc.

Also just one point of context, whereas I would definitely prefer to have a ShKAS or a ShVAK than a Japanese type 89 or type 92 machine gun, (or a Vickers K or a Lewis gun for that matter, all of which were also used well into the mid-war) and a higher ROF and more bullets are definitely better, a few things to consider.

Light machine guns (or any machine guns) especially some of these older types, heat up very rapidly and can't be used continuously anyway. You try to shoot through a belt of 200 rounds in one go you, especially with odd G-forces, you might very likely end up with a jam. Shorter bursts are better.

Fighters didn't typically get in sustained shootouts with bombers. Unless the fighter pilot was very inexperienced, they would typically be approaching very rapidly from an odd angle and then flash by in a matter of seconds. Slowly approaching from the rear was a recipe for getting bullets through your windscreen. So having a 60 or 80 round magazine wasn't necessarily totally inadequate. Would I prefer a belt fed M2 ? I definitely would. A power turret with two of them would be even better. But solving the puzzle of aircraft design was and still is a balancing act. You cant get everything you want. Gradually they improved the armament when they could.

Bottom line I don't see any of the Japanese mediums as 'dogs' - they may have had comparatively light bomb loads but it was enough to terrorized China, Burma and Indnoesia, to shatter Allied bases in Malaysia and Philippines, to sink a lot of ships, wreck Darwin and cause a lot of havoc at Port Moresby and Henderson Field on more than one occasion, even if they didn't ultimately win those fights.

Bomb tonnage is great - if you hit your target. But one of the most difficult lessons of airpower which we still struggle to grasp (though the military has gotten vastly better at it) is that no amount of bombs matters if it doesn't hit the target. You can drop 10,000 lbs of bombs but if you navigated to the wrong city, it does no good. And if you dropped it 300 meters from your target, in some cases that might as well be 300 miles because it doesn't have any significant effect, other than to make a big mess. Or kill some civilians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 14, 2021)

Another angle on the 'bomb tonnage' thing - some targets, no matter how hard you hit them, can and will be repaired. So they have to be hit again. And again. Surviving a raid becomes that much more important. If you have a squadron of bombers at Lae and want to hit Port Morseby, no matter how much damage you do it's going to get fixed. They will fill in the holes with dirt, bring in more supplies and aircraft, and start over. So you need to go back. Same also applies to some strategic targets like Ploesti.. so is it better to send in the B-24s at low altitude or does a raid by Mosquito or even Pe 2s make more sense?

According to this article, there was a successful raid by a very small force of Pe 2s against Ploesti in 1941. Each Pe 2 carried 2 x FAB 250 bombs (each with 105 kg of TNT per bomb) for a total bomb weight of only 1102 lbs per aircraft. The target was a bridge with an oil pipeline. A previous attempt (Aug 10) had failed, angering Stalin so they were extra motivated for the second raid! The distance was 725 km each way trip. On this Aug 13, mission, they hit the bridge 5 times and severed the oil pipeline, creating a significant headache for the Germans. All six Pe 2 made it back (they made it back from the first raid as well). Soviet sources claim the Germans lost a half million lbs of fuel from the pipeline break.

Similarly, on Aug 10, 1941, as the Soviet Army was reeling from German attacks, they sent the same 6 Pe-2s to attack a bridge over the Dnieper. They hit it five times. Their 250 kg bombs were not heavy enough to wreck the whole (double-layered) bridge, but they did sever the upper rail bridge, thus cutting the rail link, which was not fixed until a year later. This small attack created a supply bottleneck which was believed to have effected the outcome at Stalingrad. It wasn't fixed until fall of 1943. All six Pe 2s made it back from that raid too.

To me this is a good illustration of how precision bombing was possible, (and by the way, at least some Pe 2 pilots seemed to be able to dive bomb accurately in 1941) and it was probably a more efficient way to do damage to the enemy. Whether it really could have been organized where you had large scale precision bombing is of course, another matter. These fast, accurate types of bombers never seemed to be available in enough numbers. Last time we debated this it was suggested that substantially expanding production of Mosquitoes (such as via American or Canadian factories) would have been impoissible due to the rarity of balsa wood or the difficulty of getting it out of Ecuador. I don't buy that necessarily but I do think they were trying to make as many Mossies as they could, maybe they couldn't have ramped it up much more for who knows what reasons.

But I think we forget the lesson of WW2, Korea and Vietnam at our peril. "Moving mud" with bombs isn't how wars are won, necessarily.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 14, 2021)

Schweik said:


> What if it has a gun-nose and carries 4,000 lbs of bombs? What if the gun nose is made modular so you can swap it out in the field for a bombardier nose?



My point was it's a role not a function. A B25 with a battery of guns in the nose is carrying out light and tactical roles. A B25 with a glass nose, a bomb sight plus operator at 10,000 feet is carrying out a medium role. 

I suggested the rule (I did say it was arbitrary and capricious) to try and stop people suggesting anything capable of lifting a bomb. After all a P47 and a Typhoon are getting towards pre war medium bomber numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 14, 2021)

So at Ploesti incidentally, the Russians sent their other types as well - DB 3, Il 4, which had much greater bomb loads. But they missed their targets and got shot down .

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 14, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> My point was it's a role not a function. A B25 with a battery of guns in the nose is carrying out light and tactical roles. A B25 with a glass nose, a bomb sight plus operator at 10,000 feet is carrying out a medium role.
> 
> I suggested the rule (I did say it was arbitrary and capricious) to try and stop people suggesting anything capable of lifting a bomb. After all a P47 and a Typhoon are getting towards pre war medium bomber numbers.



Yes I agree it's difficult. And I'm not picking on you, just pointing out the limitations of the idea. The issue was in part that dropping bombs from 10,000 feet (or even 5,000 feet) often meant the bombs didn't hit the target. 

But I agree with the nose guns it is certainly in a different role, which you could also call "attack" - it's still as an aircraft capable of both. (for example A-20 / DB 7 and B-25)

Then you have aircraft like the Beaufighter which didn't really carry many bombs but excelled in that 'attack' role, mainly as strafers.


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 14, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> For the PE-2 the bomb load was 600kg internal. Six 100kg bombs, two of which were the engine nacelles.
> The 1000 kg load was external, four 250 kg bombs or two 500kg bombs
> At which point speedand range depart from most published numbers.



You are right. But 1000kg was very rare. From my memory, the average bombload was even under 600 kg during most of the operations.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 14, 2021)

500 kg in the examples I gave... and yet they operated with great success.


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 14, 2021)

Schweik said:


> The Ki-48 and Ki-49 were also supposed to be highly agile, as was the Maryland and the Lockheed Hudson which survived some duels with A6M. Any other highly agile light or medium bombers I missed?



B7A? I just love this "Japanisch Stuka".
_"Three B7A2s were captured at Kisarazu, in Chiba Prefecture, by US forces following the occupation of Japan and shipped to the US. One was sent to “Pax River” for evaluation by the US Navy and the remaining two were assigned to the USAAF. Flight testing revealed that the “Grace” possessed the handling and performance qualities of a fighter, being faster and more maneuverable than the A6M5c Zero-sen."_

In 2 engine department, two remarkable aircraft:
P1Y1
_"FE 1702 (construction number 8923) was restored to airworthiness and flown by the USAAF’s Flight Test Section at Middletown from February through to July 1946. The flight revealed that the “Frances” was capable of a top speed of 340mph at an altitude of 19,400ft and was very maneuverable." _
Ki-67
_"Flight testing of one of the Ki-67-Is at Middletown by the USAAF revealed that the “Peggy” was faster than US medium bombers of the day, including the B-25 Mitchell and B-26 Marauder, with a top speed of 334mph. It also proved to be highly maneuverable, as IJAAF service trials pilots had discovered in 1942–43."_
(All quotations are from this book: Chambers, Mark. Wings of the Rising Sun (p. 256). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition. )

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 14, 2021)

Dimlee said:


> B7A? I just love this "Japanisch Stuka".
> _"Three B7A2s were captured at Kisarazu, in Chiba Prefecture, by US forces following the occupation of Japan and shipped to the US. One was sent to “Pax River” for evaluation by the US Navy and the remaining two were assigned to the USAAF. Flight testing revealed that the “Grace” possessed the handling and performance qualities of a fighter, being faster and more maneuverable than the A6M5c Zero-sen."_
> 
> In 2 engine department, two remarkable aircraft:
> ...



Definitely. Three of my favorites. I didn't bring them up because somebody already discussed Ki 67 at length, and the others just didn't show up early enough or in enough numbers to play much of a role. I love the B7A it's probably (arguably) the best single engine strike aircraft design in the whole war. I have a model of it behind me as I type this, I'll take a pic and post later. Definitely would run rings around any Stuka (and then drop a bomb on it's base and come back and shoot it down). All that performance and agility plus it was heavily armed and had armor and self sealing tanks.

Problem was by the time it came out we were already into the Jet Age. And there were also some very good Allied strike aircraft coming out which didn't make it into the war in time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 14, 2021)

WARSPITER said:


> The Mosquito for me as the concept was the way of the future (unarmed fast bomber).



For various reasons the Mosquito got favourable treatment not afforded other bombers. Not only did it not use a "power egg" it had its own special Merlins. Conventional wisdom had it that a bomber should have a three man crew, the poor Hampden had four. To make the concept work he aircraft made design changes on everything that went in it, rather than the other way around.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 14, 2021)

The Ki-49 had 8! Maybe they could have cross trained a couple of guys and fit another bomb in it... Ki-67 had "6 to 8". B-26 had 7, B-25 had 5, Pe 2 had 3.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Feb 16, 2021)

Schweik said:


> The K-48, which looked almost exactly like a Hampden, was also quite fast, 314 mph, had armor unlike most Japanese bombers, had excellent handling, and very good range (1,500 miles). Very small bomb load of 1700 lbs / 800 kg and lightly armed, and it just seemed not to be made in very large numbers.
> 
> The Ki-49 was also fast (306 mph) and like the Ki-48, had armor and self sealing tanks (the Japanese Army seemed to figure out the need for this faster than the Navy). Power to mass (0.21) and wind loading (31 lbs) were better than most fighters. Bomb load was slightly better than the Ki-49 (2200 lbs / 1000 kg) and it was fairly heavily armed. They proved to be fairly vulnerable to P-40s though and not many were made (they were made through the war but production seemed to be at a very slow pace). I still think it was a good design with a lot of potential.
> 
> -



Unless we include the single engined bombers (here i frankly don't know about the army variants which anyway entered service before Japan's entry into ww2), the majority of Japanese bombers did have armour, the exeptions being G#M and early and not so early G4M's. You mentioned Ki-48 and 49 yourself, to this we can add Ki-21's more mature models, P1Y and Ki-
67.

According to this the reason IJAF considered the Ki 49 a heavy bomber was not its bomb load or range but it's passive and active defensive assets:

WW2 Armour and Fuel Tank Protection - What They Don't Tell You - YouTube 

The part on Japanese Army starts around 26:30, the Ki-49 is a little later than that but the whole thing is in my opinion watchable.

Light, medium and heavy bombers are classifications rather than description of a role. Arguably all three kinds could be used to bomb, for an example, enemy air fields. You design (or possibly specify would be a better expression) an aircraft partly for a mission profile, partly from the technology (most importantly engines, but radar and metallurgy etc. can be mentioned also) you've got, the result can be modified and reclassified as time progresses. The resulting aircraft can end up being used in many roles that were never intended. Light-medium-heavy bombers were relative to each country and each participant in the war, even if we can to some extent agree on approximate 'universal' standards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Just Schmidt (Feb 16, 2021)

Schweik said:


> *One more thing I wanted to add, the G4M "Betty"* did not have a single flash in the pan with the sinking of the Repulse and the Prince of Wales, they continued to harass Allies air bases around Port Moresby and in the Solomons and were part of the ongoing raids against Darwin, taking good advantage of their relatively high altitude performance and excellent range to continue to plague the Allies with strike after strike. I don't think you could call them a failure. Most twin-engined bombers in WW2 proved to have fairly high attrition rates, this includes the ones we think of as good like the Ju 88 or the B-25.



I don't want to belittle the G4M, but least we forget:







pictures don't lie, and this is clearly not a G4M. It is not a certainty that the same total number, all being G3M's, could not have done that job.

The G4M had a strong structure and good survivability in the cases where it didn't catch fire. Also, though unquestioningly suffering a disaster on 20th of February 1942, the armament was good enough to shoot down two Wildcats, though far from good enough to allow them to bomb targets protected by fighters while unescorted, according to:

Avenging Pearl Harbor - The Forgotten Turkey Shoot of WW2 - YouTube 

A point i don't think is made in the video is that one drawback as torpedo bomber was that it was quite large for a two engine aircraft. Single engine torpedo bombers would present far smaller targets on the torpedo run, even if they had other disadvantages

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 19, 2021)

Schweik said:


> *Mosquito is by far the best bomber*.


Two Squadrons using them as bombers in 1942. No 105 started to equip in Dec of 1941, first operation was end of May 1942.No 139 squadron was equipped with Mosquitos in Sept of 1942. Debatable about early war bomber. 1939-1942 bomber.



Schweik said:


> *Runners up early war (1939-1942)*
> For the early war, I like the A-20C, the Kawasaki Ki-48, the Nakajima Ki-49, the Martin 167 and 187, the Ju 88, the LeO 451, and the Pe-2


We can get into a debate about light vs medium.
The A-20 was usually called a light bomber max load 2000lbs inside.
The Ki-48 was light bomber, 400kg inside.
The Ki-49 was a medium (or heavy)
The Martin 167 was a light bomber. Wiki says 2000lb but other sources are not quite so generous, around 1200lbs depending on size of the bombs.
The Martin 187 was more of a medium, empty weight went up about 50% over the Baltimore. Gross weight was around 6,000lbs heavier. Bombload was 2000lbs according to most sources.
JU-88 was a medium although there is quite a difference between the A-1 and the A-4
LeO 451 is a medium, it could carry quite a load but traded fuel for bombs so actual load was usually less.
PE-2 was a light bomber. We have been over the bombloads several times.
Including 15,000lb gross weight bombers and 25-30,000lb (or heavier) bombers in the same catagory seems a bit unfair/unrealistic. 


On the LeO 451 from an old William Green book (subject to correction) bomb loads.
two 1102lb bombs and five 441lb bombs in the bomb bay with 220 imp gallons of fuel.
two 1102lb bombs and two 441lb bombs in the bomb bay with 398imp gallons of fuel
two 1102lb bombs in the bomb bay with 530 imp gallons fuel
one 1102lb bomb or two 441lb bombs in the bomb bay with 712 imp gallons of fuel
plus one 441lb or one 220lb bomb in each of two wing root bays. 

Under performance range with 1100lb bomb load is given as 1430miles, One would assume that is with 712imp gallons. Range with 220 imp gallons is?????
Gross weight (normal) is given as 25,133lbs 712imp gal of fuel is around 5300lbs.

The larger medium bombers had more flexibility than the light bombers but much of the bomb loads and ranges in Wiki are nonsense. 
The heaviest load and longest range never go together.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 19, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Two Squadrons using them as bombers in 1942. No 105 started to equip in Dec of 1941, first operation was end of May 1942.No 139 squadron was equipped with Mosquitos in Sept of 1942. Debatable about early war bomber. 1939-1942 bomber.



Well seeing as this thread was already discussing aircraft as rare in the field as the Ki-67, the Ju 388, and the Arado 234 then I think it's Ok to include an aircraft as important as the Mosquito. Even with two squadrons, it made a mark, and was noticed, fortunately. It's importance only grew as we know very well.



> We can get into a debate about light vs medium.



Don't bother, I already stipulated what I meant by the two terms, which it has also already been established, meant different things to different air forces.



> The A-20 was usually called a light bomber max load 2000lbs inside.



But not by my criteria, and the A-20G could carry 4,000 lbs of bombs (half on wing pylons, which it did on some short ranged missions. The A-20 was also n the original poll, so take it up with the OP if you have such a hankering to debate arbitrary terminology



> The Ki-48 was light bomber, 400kg inside.
> The Ki-49 was a medium (or heavy)
> The Martin 167 was a light bomber. Wiki says 2000lb but other sources are not quite so generous, around 1200lbs depending on size of the bombs.
> The Martin 187 was more of a medium, empty weight went up about 50% over the Baltimore. Gross weight was around 6,000lbs heavier. Bombload was 2000lbs according to most sources.
> ...



I stipulated what "light" and "medium" bomber meant vis a vis my post. For the Martin 167 or 187 (*by the way, the 187 IS the Baltimore, so it's not going to have any weight advantage over itself), the Pe-2 and the Ju 88, it all depended on the mission. They could carry more bombs (in some cases externally) for shorter range strikes, and less for longer range. Obviously those aircraft which remained in the war to the end were usually improved in their capabilities. The LeO 451 never got much past the 1940 stage.



> The larger medium bombers had more flexibility than the light bombers but much of the bomb loads and ranges in Wiki are nonsense.
> The heaviest load and longest range never go together.



You have made it clear in arguments on other threads that you think bomb tonnage matters more than accuracy, I think accuracy actually mattered (and still matters) much more - surviveability as well, and I pointed out two good example where a very small number of Pe-2s successfully carried out strikes of at least Operational significance and made it back to strike again (in fact it was the same unit which did both). Many much heavier raids (dropping many more tons of bombs) had far less impact on the outcome of the war.

As for Wikipedia, it is very limited but it's something easy for everyone to check and it's not necessarily distorting the differences between the aircraft. It's a convenient shorthand for the high level discussion, when you want to get down in the weeds you can break out the library. I don't rush to do that any more because I've spent hours transcribing data from far more authoritative sources before only to have people deny reality more than once.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 19, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Well seeing as this thread was already discussing aircraft as rare in the field as the Ki-67, the Ju 388, and the Arado 234 then I think it's Ok to include an aircraft as important as the Mosquito. Even with two squadrons, it made a mark, and was noticed, fortunately. It's importance only grew as we know very well.


 Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post. The Mosquito, important as it was from 1943 on as a bomber had very little impact in 1942 so claiming it was the best medium bomber in th e1939-42 time period is debatable. The opening post makes no time distinction, that came later. The Ki-67, the Ju 388, and the Arado 234 have got nothing to do with 1939-1942 either although they do come into play for the 2nd half of the war. 



Schweik said:


> My criteria for a light bomber is (somewhat arbitrarily) something that carries about the same amount of bombs as a fighter bomber to a range not much greater than a fighter bomber can fly. These are kind of useless unless they are super accurate or deadly (i.e. dive bombers or torpedo bombers) or have a good survival rate, though with a navigator they could also be useful as pathfinders. A medium bomber is a plane that can carry more than a typical fighter bomber (often about 2,000 lbs) and carry it a bit further than most fighter bombers can fly (say close to 1,000 miles nominal range). A heavy bomber is something that carries a lot of bombs a very long distance (say closer to 2,000 miles) - to me there's only a few of those: B-29, Lancaster, B-17, B-24, Hallifax etc.



Your criteria is somewhat arbitrary and also needs the use of the retrospectroscope. Plenty of air forces had light bombers in the 1930s and into the first years of WW II. They carried, at the time, a lot more bombs than a fighter bomber because fighter bombers either didn't exist or carried truly small payloads. Comparing 1942-44 fighter bombers to 1938-1941 light bombers skews things somewhat. 
Same with medium bombers. in 1938-41/42 they carried a lot more bombs than the fighter bombers of the time (again non extant or only in small numbers with small bombs) and carried it an awful lot further, not bit further. There were very few fighters that could fly even 600 miles without any bombs in 1938-41. 1942 saw a few show up. 

Heavy bombers, a bit more of the same, applying 1942-45 standards to 1939-42 skews things. 



> My criteria for what makes a _good_ bomber is different from most. Most people seem to believe whichever bomber could carry the heaviest load of TNT to the target area and drop it somewhere in the vicinity was the best. To me what makes a good bomber is destroying their target at a fairly high rate, i.e. not 1 or 2% of the time but 30 or 40% of the time (per raid, lets say). And mostly returning to base intact, as in, the majority of the squadron makes it back.



Carrying the heaviest load of TNT to the target (and returning) is a* good starting point* for evaluating bombers. It is not the total evaluation. 
However if you need 100 bombers of one type to get the target effect of 50 of another type then things do need to be looked at. the 50 larger, more expensive bombers may be a better deal than 100 cheap, small bombers. 

A lot is made of bomber A having destroyed a certain target on a one day mission to prove how good the airplane was. Rather overlooks the crew. Some crews accomplished quite a bit with some mediocre (if not down right poor) aircraft. 

The Russians actually got this contraption to work a few times. 





from Wiki,
. On 1 August 1941, a pair of TB-3s in _Zveno-SPB_ configuration, each with two Polikarpov I-16 fighters carrying a pair of 250 kilograms (550 lb) bombs, destroyed an oil depot with no losses in the port of Constanța, Romania.[11] On 11 and 13 August 1941, _Zveno-SPB_ successfully damaged the King Carol I Bridge over the Danube in Romania."
However the training and rarity of the crews that could successfully use this combination kept it from becoming more common. 

Aircrew training, equipement and doctrine have a lot to do with the success or failure of number of different types of bombers. 
British had poor training, not very good bomb sights, poor navigation, poor bombs and not very good doctrine at the beginning of the war. Expecting much more than the air crew to die bravely was not realistic. does that mean the aircraft themselves (and their engines) were at fault? 

BTW the standard British 500lb bomb at the beginning of the war held about 65kg of TNT so try to compare that to the Soviet 250KG bombs for bridge busting. 

A large bomb load gives options. A small load restricts options. Options include trading bomb load for range and options in types and sizes of bombs for different targets. 

Some bombers had rather tight bomb bays and despite carrying a decent weight options were restricted, but in general bomb load is a good indicator of flexibility. 

British did some bombing raids that promised little hope of success, like the first operational use of the Manchester. Night of Feb 24/25 1941 they attacked the Hipper in Brest with light loads of 500lb SAP bombs (as used on the Skua). Trouble is the 500lb SAP bomb had little hope of penetrating the armoured deck/s of the Hipper. 
The Manchester was pretty much a disaster as a bomber for a number of reasons but the failure of this raid had little to do with the Manchester itself. 

BTW the Japanese build hundreds of these things. 




because the fighter bomber of the time was this.




max bomb load 100kg. (four 25kg bombs) range 390 miles without drop tanks or bombs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mstennes (Feb 19, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> The object of ANY bomber was to put bombs on target ( or at least in the target area) will suffering acceptable losses. The more bombs (or tonnage) per loss the better and obviously more range per ton of bombs/loss is better.
> 
> Losses could/would be from all causes. B-26 almost got canceled before it really saw action due to training losses. Better training helped, but difficult to fly aircraft, even of high performance may not be the best answer.
> 
> ...


The B-26 ended up having a great career and safety record after Martin made some changes and pilot training was increased. That was the plane that started my dads army air corps career.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post. The Mosquito, important as it was from 1943 on as a bomber had very little impact in 1942 so claiming it was the best medium bomber in th e1939-42 time period is debatable. The opening post makes no time distinction, that came later. The Ki-67, the Ju 388, and the Arado 234 have got nothing to do with 1939-1942 either although they do come into play for the 2nd half of the war.



Allow me to explain all this to you. Mosquito in 1942 was already as important as the Ju 388 or AR 234 were in the late war. Probably the Ki-67 too. You are trying to say that the Mosquito doesn't count because there were relatively few operational in the early war. There were relatively few of a lot of good types. There weren't that many Pe 2s yet either for example.



> Your criteria is somewhat arbitrary and also needs the use of the retrospectroscope. Plenty of air forces had light bombers in the 1930s and into the first years of WW II. They carried, at the time, a lot more bombs than a fighter bomber because fighter bombers either didn't exist or carried truly small payloads. Comparing 1942-44 fighter bombers to 1938-1941 light bombers skews things somewhat.



So what? We all have different criteria for what we think matters or made a bomber (or any other kind of aircraft) 'good', or 'best', which are both subjective terms. That is why I explained what my criteria were in advance, so we could separate arguing about criteria from arguing about the aircraft, otherwise it becomes a hopeless mess (though some people, not saying you necessarily, like to make such a mess so as to hide bad arguments in them)

Most of the fighters as well as the bombers fighting in 1942 were 1930's or very early 1940's designs, made when they couldn't anticipate the full realities of war. They didn't know how many bombs Hurricanes and Kittyhawks could carry in particular. Nevertheless, that was the competition. I'm not saying that designers in the 1930s should have anticipated every nuance of how the war actually turned out in 1941-45, they didn't even know there would actually be a war or who would be fighting on what sides so how could they. 

But in 1942, these were the designs which were competing with each other. In the Western Desert, they rather quickly figured out that Lysanders and Blenheims were not going to cut it as bombers. They were able to adapt some of their existing, not quite perfect fighters to be quite passable fighter bombers, and those were indeed in competition with Blenheims, Marylands, Baltimores and Bostons. The latter three types, though they did not carry much heavier bombs loads than a Kittyhawk necessarily, proved 'competitive' because they were adapted successfully to their missions. They had things that fighter bombers didn't have- navigators, sometimes bombardiers, more fuel, two engines.



> Same with medium bombers. in 1938-41/42 they carried a lot more bombs than the fighter bombers of the time (again non extant or only in small numbers with small bombs) and carried it an awful lot further, not bit further. There were very few fighters that could fly even 600 miles without any bombs in 1938-41. 1942 saw a few show up.
> 
> Heavy bombers, a bit more of the same, applying 1942-45 standards to 1939-42 skews things.



I just divided it into early and late war, it's really not that much of a skew. In fact if you don't do that, you are comparing Pe-2s and He 111s to Ar 234s, which doesn't make much sense does it.



> Carrying the heaviest load of TNT to the target (and returning) is a* good starting point* for evaluating bombers. It is not the total evaluation.
> However if you need 100 bombers of one type to get the target effect of 50 of another type then things do need to be looked at. the 50 larger, more expensive bombers may be a better deal than 100 cheap, small bombers.



Let me help your analogy along a bit and clarify it. If you try to make it a starting point, then what you are actually doing is creating a filter or a funnel. You are placing bomb tonnage carried as a higher criteria than accuracy or survivability or range or servicability. All of which are actually equally important. If bomber A carries 5,000 lbs of bombs, but only survives one mission, and bomber B carries 2,000 lbs of bombs, but survives 10 missions, which one is delivering more ordinance? But it may actually be bomber C (carrying 1,000 lbs) which is the only one potentially accurate enough to actually hit the target. Or bomber D which isn't as good as any of the others but turns out to be the only one that can keep flying from the tropical island, desert wasteland, arctic tundra or whatever the extreme environment may be.



> A lot is made of bomber A having destroyed a certain target on a one day mission to prove how good the airplane was. Rather overlooks the crew. Some crews accomplished quite a bit with some mediocre (if not down right poor) aircraft.


That is a point I would agree with, but the machine does define the limits. The Finns adapted many mediocre fighters into good fighting machines, but even they couldn't do anything with a Caudron, and they did a lot better with Bf 109Gs when they got those than they had with the older types. Training and pilot skill is always a major factor, look at the Wildcat vs. the Zero (on both sides). Or the difference in bombing accuracy and air to air combat for Navy flown SBDs vs Marine or Army flown. But we can usually see a range of success and failure in the operational history, if the planes could be adapted (and they were used long enough) we can usually see if they had potential or not.

Adaptability was actually one of the most important factors for success for any war machine, especially aircraft.



> The Russians actually got this contraption to work a few times.
> View attachment 613326
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, these were used in the same incident as those 6 x Pe 2s, the difference is that these TB-3 / I-16 contraptions were ultimately lost, whereas the Pe 2s had a much higher survival rate, longer range, and better accuracy. That's why Pe-2s were still in heavy use in 1944 whereas the TB-3 was a distant memory.



> A large bomb load gives options. A small load restricts options. Options include trading bomb load for range and options in types and sizes of bombs for different targets.



Poor accuracy and a miserable survival ratio in combat restrict options. Poor range restricts options. Poor serviceability restricts options. The Hampden bomber carried a heavier bomb load than the A-20 or Pe-2, but does anyone think it was a better bomber? The Whitely carried more than the A-20 and the Hampden combined, but what kind of dent did it put into the Axis cause compared to say, the Mosquito, in spite of the latter's comparatively tiny bomb load (and I mean before they started putting 4,000 lb 'cookies' on it).



> Some bombers had rather tight bomb bays and despite carrying a decent weight options were restricted, but in general bomb load is a good indicator of flexibility.


Look how much havoc was wrought by the D3A, the SBD, the Stuka, the or the A-20. I don't think we can say they had a marginal impact. I guarantee D3As could have sunk the Hipper, if Skuas could lay a bomb on it. SBDs as well.


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Feb 20, 2021)

You guys are gonna run me outta popcorn! Keep it up, I love hearing people think!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 20, 2021)

mstennes said:


> The B-26 ended up having a great career and safety record after Martin made some changes and pilot training was increased. That was the plane that started my dads army air corps carrier.



I've heard it argued that the wing area increase did nothing but reduce the speed of the aircraft and increase its losses. The issue was always training and a few technical issues such as the batteries that controlled the propeller pitch failing on take-off due to ground crews draining them during maintenance procedures.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2021)

In the MTO, they did alright because they had escorts (325th FG was assigned to protect them) and could fly their missions at a fairly high cruise speed so they were in and out of the target area pretty fast.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 20, 2021)

The Ju-88 needs some kudos. First flying in 1936 and staying competitive right up to the last days of the war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 20, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Allow me to explain all this to you. Mosquito in 1942 was already as important as the Ju 388 or AR 234 were in the late war. Probably the Ki-67 too. You are trying to say that the Mosquito doesn't count because there were relatively few operational in the early war. There were relatively few of a lot of good types. There weren't that many Pe 2s yet either for example.



There were a lot more PE-2s in 1941 than there were Mosquitos in 1942. The Mosquito was performing a lot of important functions in 1942. Recon and nightfighter, but unarmed fast bomber was barely on the screen, a few newspaper headline raids with heavy losses. The two squadrons that used them in 1942 were switched to night bombing/pathfinding in 1943 to reduce losses. Again it is timing, what the Mosquito accomplished from 1943 was amazing, but it was not that significant a bomber in 1942. 



Schweik said:


> Most of the fighters as well as the bombers fighting in 1942 were 1930's or very early 1940's designs, made when they couldn't anticipate the full realities of war. They didn't know how many bombs Hurricanes and Kittyhawks could carry in particular. Nevertheless, that was the competition. I'm not saying that designers in the 1930s should have anticipated every nuance of how the war actually turned out in 1941-45, they didn't even know there would actually be a war or who would be fighting on what sides so how could they.


 Then use your own criteria but look at it honestly. Range and speed of a Hurricane II with two 250lb bombs, or with two 500lb bombs?
Hurricane I didn't carry any. 
Pair of 500lb bombs on a Hurricane II knock about 30mph off the speed. 
And please remember that the Hurribomber used the Merlin XX engine of 1940, Kittyhawk range and speed carrying a 250 or 500lb bomb? 
Now compare range/speed to the Blenheim or Marylander let alone the Baltimore or Boston. 


As SHORT range bombers the fighter bombers could do good work but quit saying they only had a bit less range than light or medium bombers. Blenheim could carry four 250lb bombs, or two 500lb bombs 1400 miles. It could also carry numbers of 40lb bombs in small bomb containers for certain targets. Other light bombers had similar capabilities. 
Some mid-war fighter bomber missions seem rather wasteful. Hurricane IVs with a drop tank under one wing and one bomb or four rockets under the other?
P-38 raid on Ploesti, one 300 gallon tank and one 1000lb bomb per plane? 

BTW raids on Ploesti (or other Romanian targets) need to take into account the state of the defenses. Numbers/types of AA guns and numbers/types of defending fighters against any given raid. 



Schweik said:


> Blenheims, Marylands, Baltimores and Bostons. The latter three types, though they did not carry much heavier bombs loads than a Kittyhawk necessarily, proved 'competitive' because they were adapted successfully to their missions.



What we don't know is how far the Kittyhawk could carry heavy loads. It also seems that the not all Kittyhawks carried the same load. The 1941-42 Kittyhawk Is and Ia's were rated to carry one 500lb and two 100lb bombs. When or if they were modified to carry heavier loads? By the time you get to the Kittyhawk IV the plane could officially (in the manual) carry two 1000lb bombs and one 500lb (no mention of how long the runway had to be.) The KittyHawks IVs that attacked the Pescara river in May of 1944 carried one 1000lb bomb and two 500lb bombs according to squadron records. It was noted that the Kittyhawk IIIs were only rated to carry 1000lbs of bombs totoal.





One of the planes used in the Pescara raid but this is almost one year after Sicily let alone North Africa. 

I have seen the photos of P-40s with six 250lb bombs. Exactly which model P-40 and what was done to allow this ( limited ammo?, guns pulled? less than full fuel tanks?) I have no idea. Getting a P-40E off the ground at 1000lbs over max gross weight in tropical conditions might have been a bit exciting however as in a long period of boredom with several seconds of terror as the end of the runway approached  

However there were alot of missions these fighter bombers could NOT do that the light bombers could do to range. 



Schweik said:


> Let me help your analogy along a bit and clarify it. If you try to make it a starting point, then what you are actually doing is creating a filter or a funnel. You are placing bomb tonnage carried as a higher criteria than accuracy or survivability or range or servicability. All of which are actually equally important.



I did say starting point didn't I? Range is pretty much equally important. Serviceability is nice but if you can't reach the target, or reach it with a worthwhile bomb load the most serviceable planes in the world are useless for the mission. You have to reach the target with a worthwhile payload, then you can worry about the other stuff. 
This is one reason the A-20 was not popular in the South Pacific (and the A-24 even less so) as it didn't have the range to reach many of the targets the Allies wanted to hit. 
Fighter bombers in 1942 in that theater? 
Once you can reach the target you can worry about (or rate) accuracy (which also depends on crew training and bomb sights and tactics in addition to the characteristics of the plane). 
Survivability somewhat depends on the enemy, not all enemies were the same and even some enemies changed their defenses considerably in a short period of time. 
Survivability becomes somewhat subjective. PE-2s vs Romanian PZL 11Fs and PZL 24Es or survivability vs Bf 109Fs? 
Stukas vs the British and French AA in 1940 or Stukes vs the American AA in 1942/43 ?

I can find bomb loads and range (not always accurate), trying to find actual data (not opinion) on survivability is an awful lot harder. 



Schweik said:


> Poor accuracy and a miserable survival ratio in combat restrict options. Poor range restricts options. Poor serviceability restricts options. The Hampden bomber carried a heavier bomb load than the A-20 or Pe-2, but does anyone think it was a better bomber? The Whitely carried more than the A-20 and the Hampden combined, but what kind of dent did it put into the Axis cause compared to say, the Mosquito,



As to the Hampden, it somewhat depends on what the target is  
Hampdens were used for dropping sea mines and did attack (not very successfully) the Germans ships at Brest and other places on the French coast. The Scharnhorst was hit according to some sources by three 2000lb AP bombs (not dropped by Hampdens) The Hampden however could carry two such bombs over distances from England to Brest. 
The A-20 and PE-2 could not carry one such bomb. Hampdens also were used to attack German industry but British night bombing techniques were pretty poor in the early part of the war regardless of the bomber airframe used. Assuming an A-20 could even reach some of the targets in daylight it might not have done much damage and suffered high losses (early A-20s only held 400 US gallons of fuel). By night the A-20 is using one less crewman to deliver 1/2 the bomb load with no better accuracy.

Whitley was sort of two engine heavy bomber, it was never intended to operate in daylight. During the phony war it did leaflet raids as far as Warsaw Poland. It Bombed Northern Italy right after the Italians declared war.Damage may not have been much but could the A-20 or PE-2 do either mission? 
There were only 1814 built and 160 of those were not being used as bombers before WW II started (Tiger engines banned from over water flights) 
Whitleys did perform a number of roles rather unrelated to bombing so impact on the war is hard to judge. 

The last is certainly shifting the goal posts. Many late war medium bombers didn't come close to the impact that the Mosquito had. however a large part of the Mosquitos impact was marking targets and keeping them marked for the four engine heavies. The Mosquitos increased the accuracy of the 4 engine bombers and so acted as a force multiplier. 
So does this mean the KI-67 and Arado 234 were crappy bombers because they had little impact on the allied cause? 






Schweik said:


> I guarantee D3As could have sunk the Hipper, if Skuas could lay a bomb on it. SBDs as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 20, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> The Ju-88 needs some kudos. First flying in 1936 and staying competitive right up to the last days of the war.




The Ju 88, Ju 188 and certainly the Ju 388 all belong there, proably more than any other type. The Ju 388 is an evolutionary improvement to the Ju 88A1 rather than a new type. The aircraft was there from before 1939 all the way to the end and it can be argue that the Ju 388 was fully competitive with the best allied types at the end.

The Bombers grew along this route Ju 88A1->Ju 88A5(intermediate)-Ju 88A4(enlarged wing)-Ju 88S0 (with blown nose) BMW801 but still with ventral guns 335mph)
Ju 88S1 removed the ventral bandola to get speeds in excess of 384 mph as well as variants Ju 188S2 (BMWTJ engines) and Ju 88S3 (Jumo 213 engines)

The Ju 88A4 evolved into the Ju 188E (BMW 801 engines) and Ju 188A(Jumo 213 engines). This had an improved wing and extended wing tips.

The Ju 88A1/A5/A4 had a heavy fighter analogues Ju 88C usually used as night fighters but also long range fighters over the sea. The Ju 88R was a Ju 88C series with BMW 801 engines.

The Ju 88G series heavy fighters/night fighters used the enlarged tail and improved wing tips of the Ju 188 with the BMW 801 engines (Ju 88G1) and Jumo 213A (Ju 88G6) or Jumo 213E (Ju 88G7)

The Ju 388 was an evolution of the Ju 188 Estimated speeds were:
With BMW 801TJ engine, about 385 mph service ceiling 44,000ft.
With Jumo 213E and MW50 about 408mph
With Jumo 222E/F 444mph.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2021)

Ju 388 with Jumo 222E/F was operational?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 20, 2021)

Nothing with a Jumo 222 was operational. The Ju 222 was a huge success for the allies.


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 20, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Ju 388 with Jumo 222E/F was operational?



I think one Ju 288 flew with the Jumo 288A2/B2 so it would have been possible to put it in a Ju 388. The Jumo 222A3/B3 based Jumo 222E/F(had two stage Supercharger) was passing all its bench tests so engine was on the production program in 1944/45.

Engines planed for the Ju 388 were BMW 801TJ, Jumo 213 series and the Jumo 222E/F and Jumo 222A3/B3

The Jumo 222E/F was producing 2800hp on B4+MW50 but was taken of the production program in 1945 again unless it achieved 3000hp. Obviously Germany has Russian and Allied troops in it at this time and the country is divided into pockets so this was as much a decision based on performance as the realities of production possibilites. It still looked good with the turbocharged 801TJ and Jumo 213E. Engines such as the DB603N and Jumo 213J was promising 2600hp-2800hp on C3+MW50 so that may have had something to do with it as well.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2021)

That's what I thought.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2021)

You can come up with plenty of American, Russian and British planes operational circa 1945-1946 which were hella badass too.


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> You can come up with plenty of American, Russian and British planes operational circa 1945-1946 which were hella badass too.



The A26 with a 2800hp Water injected PW-2800 could have been made but really only a 1945 aircraft. The point I wanted to make was the Ju 388 is still at its core a Ju 88 going back to pre-war.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 21, 2021)

Yeah that's a fair point. I would argue it still wasn't quite the beast that a Mosquito was, mainly because they seemed to be somewhat vulnerable to (the reasonably fast) fighters, at least in the bomber role. But it was certainly a long lasting and versatile design that proved useful to the war effort from the early days to the end of the war. Also a Ju 388 just looks cool. 






But in terms of sheer performance, maybe an F7F? I guess that's really a fighter but by then the line was certainly blurred.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 21, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> There were a lot more PE-2s in 1941 than there were Mosquitos in 1942. The Mosquito was performing a lot of important functions in 1942. Recon and nightfighter, but unarmed fast bomber was barely on the screen, a few newspaper headline raids with heavy losses. The two squadrons that used them in 1942 were switched to night bombing/pathfinding in 1943 to reduce losses. Again it is timing, what the Mosquito accomplished from 1943 was amazing, but it was not that significant a bomber in 1942.



Heavy losses?

As you point out, there were small numbers of Mosquitoes available for early daylight bombing missions, so even the loss of one or two aircraft makes for a high loss rate.

The main reason for switching to night was for pathfinding duties, but the low level raids have proved much more successful than anticipated.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 21, 2021)

No other bomber could really pull those off in that manner. There were a few other daring feats (the Beaufighter dropping a Tricolor on the Arc de Triumph and strafing the gestapo HQ was pretty badass) but the Mosquito demonstrated a capability that really no other bomber had. Before 1943. They rushed it into service as a pathfinder in part because all those heavy bombers with the super impressive payloads were barely able to navigate to the right targets and needed a lot of help hitting anything at night.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 21, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Heavy losses?
> 
> As you point out, there were small numbers of Mosquitoes available for early daylight bombing missions, so even the loss of one or two aircraft makes for a high loss rate.
> 
> The main reason for switching to night was for pathfinding duties, but the low level raids have proved much more successful than anticipated.



Well, 20 planes lost out of 400 is a 5% loss rate but one out of six is 16.6%. One story says that the squadron (or squadrons) were experiencing a higher loss rate than when they were flying Blenheims. Of course they were accomplishing quite a bit more too but still?
The daylight strike role was taken over by the fighter bomber version of the Mosquito. 
These were highly experienced crews and most (all) of the raids were carefully planned.


----------



## MikeMeech (Feb 21, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, 20 planes lost out of 400 is a 5% loss rate but one out of six is 16.6%. One story says that the squadron (or squadrons) were experiencing a higher loss rate than when they were flying Blenheims. Of course they were accomplishing quite a bit more too but still?
> The daylight strike role was taken over by the fighter bomber version of the Mosquito.
> These were highly experienced crews and most (all) of the raids were carefully planned.



Hi

In the book 'The Bomber Command War Diaries' by Middlebrook and Everitt, pp. 707-708, has statistics on losses that include some of the bombers mentioned in the tread when they were in use by Bomber Command:









I hope that is of use.

Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 21, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> There were a lot more PE-2s in 1941 than there were Mosquitos in 1942. The Mosquito was performing a lot of important functions in 1942. Recon and nightfighter, but unarmed fast bomber was barely on the screen, a few newspaper headline raids with heavy losses. The two squadrons that used them in 1942 were switched to night bombing/pathfinding in 1943 to reduce losses. Again it is timing, what the Mosquito accomplished from 1943 was amazing, but it was not that significant a bomber in 1942.



You seem to have established some criteria for what is a "good bomber" that I haven't necessarily bought into. That's almost like making up your own religion and then calling me a sinner according to your rites. So what? Why don't you spell out what you think it is rather than arguing at oblique angles with hints and insinuations. As far as I know, no single medium bomber type was a major game changer in the early war. Most of the early war devastation was wrought by single engined types like the Stuka, D3A, SBD etc. The Mosquito however was a far better _design_ than any of the others on our list, clearly, and it's early missions were wildly successful in comparison to all other Allied types. They were able to attack fairly deep into enemy territory unescorted and hit their targets, and even if they did take some rather heavy losses they demonstrated a "proof of concept" which was as alarming for the enemy as it was encouraging to the Allies. Those loss rates absolutely paled in comparison to the attempts at daylight raids by other types including _with escorts_.



> Then use your own criteria but look at it honestly. Range and speed of a Hurricane II with two 250lb bombs, or with two 500lb bombs?
> Hurricane I didn't carry any.
> Pair of 500lb bombs on a Hurricane II knock about 30mph off the speed.
> And please remember that the Hurribomber used the Merlin XX engine of 1940, Kittyhawk range and speed carrying a 250 or 500lb bomb?
> Now compare range/speed to the Blenheim or Marylander let alone the Baltimore or Boston.



So what? How does this make anything I wrote in any way 'dishonest'? I would say the above implies something which is itself dishonest - the Blenheim was being phased out as a front line bomber type in 1942, certainly in the MTO it was put on the back bench rather quickly. The Maryland was phased out of front line service for the most part by 1943. Bostons and Baltimores soldiered on, but so did Kittyhawks (and Hurricanes too for a while). They were being used as Fighter Bombers in Italy right to the end of the war so obviously the commanders and planners thought they brought something useful to the role.

They started using Kittyhawks and Hurricanes as fighter bombers specifically because of the miserable performance of aircraft like the Blenheim. More on that in a second.



> What we don't know is how far the Kittyhawk could carry heavy loads. It also seems that the not all Kittyhawks carried the same load. The 1941-42 Kittyhawk Is and Ia's were rated to carry one 500lb and two 100lb bombs. When or if they were modified to carry heavier loads? By the time you get to the Kittyhawk IV the plane could officially (in the manual) carry two 1000lb bombs and one 500lb (no mention of how long the runway had to be.) The KittyHawks IVs that attacked the Pescara river in May of 1944 carried one 1000lb bomb and two 500lb bombs according to squadron records. It was noted that the Kittyhawk IIIs were only rated to carry 1000lbs of bombs totoal.
> View attachment 613396
> 
> One of the planes used in the Pescara raid but this is almost one year after Sicily let alone North Africa.



You seem to be flailing about a bit with your query / insinuations, because you don't know the operational history. But that doesn't by any means mean it's unknowable.

They were beginning to experiment with bombs on fighters in the Western Desert as early as January 1942. Clive Caldwell specifically complained to higher command about escorting Blenheims which were trundling along at low altitude and a cruising speed of barely 95 knots, making both the bombers and the escorting fighters highly vulnerable (as we borne out by heavy losses). The fighter bombers were still vulnerable flying low and slow but vastly less so, especially after they had released their bombs. Caldwell himself participated in some of the first tests of bombing, which was done on Kittyhawks (never Tomahawks as far as I'm aware) after some modifications by their squadron mechanics to put bomb shackles on them. Other famous Kittyhawk aces including Bobby Gibbes and James Edwards also participated in experiments carrying various new configurations of bombs with ever heavier loads.

They never did do much structural strengthening of Kittyhawks to carry bombs. The only major change aside from lengthening the fuselage was with the engines, which were rated for higher and higher power (though actually rated engine power at the altitudes the fighter bombers typically operated peaked with the 1942 vintage P-40K)



> I have seen the photos of P-40s with six 250lb bombs. Exactly which model P-40 and what was done to allow this ( limited ammo?, guns pulled? less than full fuel tanks?) I have no idea. Getting a P-40E off the ground at 1000lbs over max gross weight in tropical conditions might have been a bit exciting however as in a long period of boredom with several seconds of terror as the end of the runway approached
> 
> However there were alot of missions these fighter bombers could NOT do that the light bombers could do to range.



Your opinions and speculations, while interesting, are by no means definitive. Here is what an actual kittyhawk pilot said about using them as fighter bombers:

Jack Doyle Interview

_"Getting on to your first point I don't think everyone did come to like them, because I know some people that would never do a three-point landing with it, or attempt to and they'd do tail-down wheelers. But I think they were an outstanding aircraft for the job you were doing. I went right through the war on Kittyhawks although I was promised Mustangs in 450 Squadron. They didn't give me Mustangs but they gave me one personally to play with to sort of abate my wrath a bit, but actually the Kittyhawk was better than the Mustang for doing the job that the Kittyhawks were doing. It is very robust. It is very solid. It has a minimum amount of plumbing for radiator and oil and that sort of thing - the Mustang has a radiator way back and there's a lot of plumbing and you can get bullets through the pipes which causes you problems. But the Kitty was very strong and robust and it had very good armament. It carried 2000 pounds of bombs. There were twin-engined three-crew aircraft in the Middle East that only carried 1500 pounds of bombs. We carried 1500 pounds of bombs on the Kittyhawk as a perfectly normal bomb load._

_So it had a very powerful, or it had very good lift and strong engines._

_Oh yes, it did. I mean - you can laugh at this - we were climbing at 200 feet a minute with a bomb load - you're modern stuff goes up vertically - but they didn't have much of a rate of climb but I carried the first 1000 pound bomb on the Kittyhawk and in subsequent operations the more experienced pilots which sometimes flew the newer aircraft, a better aircraft, they carried 2000 pounds and the remaining six or so in the squadron would carry 1500 pounds; a normal load is 1 500 pounds but we carried 2000 for shipping."_

So performance was certainly limited while carrying a heavy bomb load, however they were using these against the most dangerous and risky targets, up against quite dangerous German fighter and later mostly increasingly heavy and effective flak opposition right up to 1945, in environments that Blenheims simply couldn't survive in, and they could both hit the targets more often (mainly due to "shallow angle" dive bombing methods) and survive better. Fighter bombers were smaller targets, could strafe the AA positions themselves, and Kittyhawks in particular were strongly made with less vulnerable 'plumbing' as Doyle put it.

*Anyway, I'd really like clarification as to what your point actually was? *I said that fighter bombers were 'competiton' for light and medium bombers. Some, like the Blenheim, were basically replaced. Others like the A-20, the B-25 and Baltimore, and of course, the Mosquito, soldiered on. New types like the A-26 emerged. I never said fighter-bombers and light or medium bombers were equal in every way. I in fact pointed out that twin engined medium bombers (by my own stipulated definition, you could also include twin-engined light bombers here) had the advantages of navigators, extra engines, and (usually) longer range. You objection seems a bit turgid and lacking in an actual point.



> I did say starting point didn't I? Range is pretty much equally important. Serviceability is nice but if you can't reach the target, or reach it with a worthwhile bomb load the most serviceable planes in the world are useless for the mission. You have to reach the target with a worthwhile payload, then you can worry about the other stuff.
> This is one reason the A-20 was not popular in the South Pacific (and the A-24 even less so) as it didn't have the range to reach many of the targets the Allies wanted to hit.
> Fighter bombers in 1942 in that theater?
> Once you can reach the target you can worry about (or rate) accuracy (which also depends on crew training and bomb sights and tactics in addition to the characteristics of the plane).
> ...



Maybe harder, but not impossible. The operational histories are available. For example, B-25s, A-20s, Baltimores, Pe-2s and Moqsuitoes - as well as Kittyhawk and Hurricane fighter bombers, all contended with Bf 109s and MC 202s and the assortments of German flak on a sufficient number of sorties that you can observe patterns. The Soviets recorded mission survival statistics on their aircraft, and the Pe-2 had one of the best rates of survival, especially after they put in the heavier dorsal gun.



> As to the Hampden, it somewhat depends on what the target is
> Hampdens were used for dropping sea mines and did attack (not very successfully) the Germans ships at Brest and other places on the French coast. The Scharnhorst was hit according to some sources by three 2000lb AP bombs (not dropped by Hampdens) The Hampden however could carry two such bombs over distances from England to Brest.



If the mission was delivery for UPS or DHL, then I agree, the Hampden takes the cake. For actual destruction of wartime targets, there is a reason why the Hampden was relegated to dropping mines.



> The A-20 and PE-2 could not carry one such bomb. Hampdens also were used to attack German industry but British night bombing techniques were pretty poor in the early part of the war regardless of the bomber airframe used. Assuming an A-20 could even reach some of the targets in daylight it might not have done much damage and suffered high losses (early A-20s only held 400 US gallons of fuel). By night the A-20 is using one less crewman to deliver 1/2 the bomb load with no better accuracy.



Yet I guarantee the A-20 and Pe-2 destroyed more enemy targets - including ships, than the Hampden did. The A-20 could skip bomb and it could carry a torpedo (that was how the Soviets used them for the most part). I know they were used with skip and masthead bombing techniques by the Americans in the MTO as well as in the Pacific. The Pe-2 could dive bomb. Therefore both were vastly more accurate than the Hampden or any level bomber.



> Whitley was sort of two engine heavy bomber, it was never intended to operate in daylight. During the phony war it did leaflet raids as far as Warsaw Poland. It Bombed Northern Italy right after the Italians declared war.*Damage may not have been much but *could the A-20 or PE-2 do either mission?



We have different criteria, delivering bombs to long distance seems to be yours, for mine, damaging enemy targets and surviving are my two most important.

I'd really like to see evidence that the Whitley was planned as a night bomber from the early design stage or spec.



> The last is certainly shifting the goal posts. Many late war medium bombers didn't come close to the impact that the Mosquito had. however a large part of the Mosquitos impact was marking targets and keeping them marked for the four engine heavies. The Mosquitos increased the accuracy of the 4 engine bombers and so acted as a force multiplier.
> So does this mean the KI-67 and Arado 234 were crappy bombers because they had little impact on the allied cause?



It means there are different criteria for what makes a good or useful bomber, which you haven't defined but seem to be playing around with.

Mine are damaging the target, surviving combat long enough to complete multiple missions, range too, relatively high serviceability (the Mosquito was ineffective in the CBI because due to the materials it was made of it did poorly in high humidity / wet environments, apparently) and versatility.

Performing 'Sterling service' as a target tug, a maritime mine layer, or a liaison aircraft isn't exceptional to me, certainly not for a bomber or fighter. Other missions like recon, which the Mosquito excelled at, or night fighting, again kudos mosquito, pathfinding, night intruder etc. also were useful. And other light bombers including both A-20 and Pe -2 also performed at those roles.

Bomb load however does not trump all other factors. All things being equal, of course it's better to carry bigger and heavier bombs. But if you miss the target, and / or don't survive 3 missions, it doesn't actually help the war effort.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Feb 21, 2021)

"If the mission was delivery for UPS or DHL, . . . " 

re Whitley

In my notes I have the following:

The Whitley was designed to meet Air Ministry Specification B.3/34 for a night capable heavy bomber, with a secondary troop carrying ability. Requirements included the carriage of a 2500 lb bomb load over 1250 miles at 225 mph at 15,000 ft.

I do not remember where I got the above info from (the note is from ~20 years ago) but I would not have made the note in my aircraft data file on the Whitley if it were not from something ~official.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 21, 2021)

Night capable doesn't sound to me like 'night only'


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> So what? How does this make anything I wrote in any way 'dishonest'? I would say the above implies something which is itself dishonest - the Blenheim was being phased out as a front line bomber type in 1942, certainly in the MTO it was put on the back bench rather quickly.



Lets see, Post #101 of yours 


Schweik said:


> My criteria for a light bomber is (somewhat arbitrarily) _something that carries about the same amount of bombs as a fighter bomber to a *range not much greater than a fighter bomber can fly*. _These are kind of useless unless they are super accurate or deadly (i.e. dive bombers or torpedo bombers) or have a good survival rate, though with a navigator they could also be useful as pathfinders. _A medium bomber is a plane that can carry more than a typical fighter bomber (often about 2,000 lbs) and *carry it a bit further than most fighter bombers can fly (say close to 1,000 miles nominal range)*_.



It appears that your fighter bombers, The Hurricane and KittyHawk had ranges of 400 to 600 miles depending on load and speed, high speed which you prize would shorten the range considerably. Operational radius would be less than 1/2. 
KIttyhawk IV (of 1943) lost about 15mph of cruising speed with a single 500lb bomb. Range at 9000ft at 257mph true with 140 gallons internal fuel (no reserves/allowances) was 540 miles. 
It could go further if it flew slower. combat allowance and reserve are going to cut into the combat radius. 
Fighter bombers that carried 2000lbs (and even near 2000lbs) were few and far between in 1942. For the US it pretty much the P-38 with that rating. P-47s didn't get under wing racks until late 1943. It took quite a while to get the Typhoon to carry a pair of 1000lb bombs.(1944?) It carried a pair of 500lbs bombs much earlier. 

That is the difference between light bombers/medium bombers and fighter bombers. Other fighter bombers like Bf 109s had even shorter ranges with a single 550lb bomb. 

For some perspective it is about 300 miles from El Alamein to tobruk, 225 miles from Tobruk to Benghazi and about 400 miles from Benghazi to Tripoli (over water).
You can do a lot with fighter bombers, there is also an awful lot you cannot do with them. 

You can believe what you want in your own religion about what light and medium bombers are. 




Schweik said:


> Your opinions and speculations, while interesting, are by no means definitive. Here is what an actual kittyhawk pilot said about using them as fighter bombers:


According to the manual for the P-40N/Kittyhawk IV take-off run with a 170 gallon ferry tank (just over 700lbs more weight than the 52 gallon tank plus whatever the difference in the tank weights were) was 2500ft. actual weight not given but it was suggested that extra weight, like ammo, not be carried on ferry flights. Manual gives 1200ft for a hard surface at 7900lbs and 1600 ft for 8900lbs with a 500lb bomb or 75 gallon tank. Except that is for 32 degrees F and you need to add 9% for every 20 degrees above 32 degrees. 

BTW two 170 gallon tanks need 3800ft for take-off, temperature not given. 

I would note that while the pilot you quote says something about landings he makes no reference to take-offs which is what I was speculating on (with the aid of the manual) . 


Bomb load does not trump all but it is a starting point for comparison. 
Mine laying was an important role for bombers (B-29s laid lots them, helping shut down Japanese inter island shipping.) 
Range is important. If you can't reach the target and return then there are no missions and nothing is achieved. But it is not the only criteria. 

Survivability is very hard to figure out. Unless the operational histories are very, very detailed. When the German ships were in Brest there were an estimated 1000 AA guns defending them, at the time it was supposed to be the most heavily defended area in Europe. Unless operational histories detail AA gn density, ammo supply and some other details we don't know what the actual situation was. 
Perhaps you can tell us if the Soviets in those summer, early fall of 1941 raids into Romania were opposed by Just the Romanian air force or were German fighter units there? The Germans did move units in later. Would the Soviets have been able to mount raids several hundred miles deep into German territory on the north end of the front? 
What were the AA defenses of the the oil refineries and Bridges in the summer of 1941? All of these things changed as the war went on. 

BTW the PE-2 used at least three different setups for the 12.7mm gun out the back. So we are comparing what to what? 7.62mm gun to A, B or C? 



Schweik said:


> The A-20 could skip bomb and it could carry a torpedo (that was how the Soviets used them for the most part). I know they were used with skip and masthead bombing techniques by the Americans in the MTO as well as in the Pacific. The Pe-2 could dive bomb. Therefore both were vastly more accurate than the Hampden or any level bomber.



The Hampden was used for low level attacks on certain targets.
I will note that AP bombs don't work in low level attacks. 

I would also note the PE-2 could dive bomb in theory. A good crew with a properly maintained/operating aircraft could dive bomb. A poor crew is not going to give good results and the dive brake retraction mechanism often malfunctioned leaving the plane with a top speed of 260-280kph. One reason some crews stopped using it as a dive bomber. perhaps later ones got the retraction system fixed?


----------



## Schweik (Feb 22, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Lets see, Post #101 of yours
> 
> It appears that your fighter bombers, The Hurricane and KittyHawk had ranges of 400 to 600 miles depending on load and speed, high speed which you prize would shorten the range considerably. Operational radius would be less than 1/2.
> KIttyhawk IV (of 1943) lost about 15mph of cruising speed with a single 500lb bomb. Range at 9000ft at 257mph true with 140 gallons internal fuel (no reserves/allowances) was 540 miles.
> ...



I think you misunderstood my post, I was saying that medium bombers, or light twin engined bombers, often carried bomb loads of around 2000 lbs. Whether Kittyhawks could or not wasn't necessarily known by early 1942 but they were actually carrying two 500 lbs routinely by the end of 1942 and sometimes three of them. By mid 1943 the 2,000 lb bomb loads were not unusual. They could also carry a single bomb for a longer flight which didn't seem to affect range much.



> That is the difference between light bombers/medium bombers and fighter bombers. Other fighter bombers like Bf 109s had even shorter ranges with a single 550lb bomb.
> 
> For some perspective it is about 300 miles from El Alamein to tobruk, 225 miles from Tobruk to Benghazi and about 400 miles from Benghazi to Tripoli (over water).
> You can do a lot with fighter bombers, there is also an awful lot you cannot do with them.
> ...



The pilot I quoted, Jack Doyle, very experienced pilot flying later in the war who ended up leader of 450 Sqn RAAF, said in his own words:

_*There were twin-engined three-crew aircraft in the Middle East that only carried 1500 pounds of bombs. We carried 1500 pounds of bombs on the Kittyhawk as a perfectly normal bomb load.*_

_So it had a very powerful, or it had very good lift and strong engines._

_Oh yes, it did. I mean - you can laugh at this - we were climbing at 200 feet a minute with a bomb load - you're modern stuff goes up vertically - but they didn't have much of a rate of climb but I carried the first 1000 pound bomb on the Kittyhawk and in subsequent operations the more experienced pilots which sometimes flew the newer aircraft, a better aircraft, they carried 2000 pounds and the remaining six or so in the squadron would carry 1500 pounds; a normal load is 1 500 pounds but we carried 2000 for shipping."_

Now I may be reading into this, but when he says "We carried 1500 lbs of bombs on the Kittyhawk as a perfectly normal bomb load that does not seem to reflect a lot of anxiety about taking off with them. I can tell you from some of the interviews that the first time this was attempted there _was_ a great deal of anxiety, but it turned out the Kittyhawk could handle the weight, and as Doyle said, it had a lot of lift.

Again, this isn't me putting words in this fellows mouth. He is the one who brought up the comparison of the Kittyhawk in bomber role with the other light bomber types. So I think that supports the notion that it is a viable comparison.

By the way, the two Kittyhawk types he is referring to are Kittyhawk III and IV, the IV being the one he refers to as more powerful. The III (equivalent to P-40K and M) was available in the Western desert from mid 1942 (K) or late 1942 (M).



> Bomb load does not trump all but it is a starting point for comparison.
> Mine laying was an important role for bombers (B-29s laid lots them, helping shut down Japanese inter island shipping.)
> Range is important. If you can't reach the target and return then there are no missions and nothing is achieved. But it is not the only criteria.



Right, range, surviveability, bomb load, serviceability and *bombing accuracy* all mattered. And still do. You need most of those factors to do at least one or two of the bombers jobs. more on that in a second.



> Survivability is very hard to figure out. Unless the operational histories are very, very detailed. When the German ships were in Brest there were an estimated 1000 AA guns defending them, at the time it was supposed to be the most heavily defended area in Europe. Unless operational histories detail AA gn density, ammo supply and some other details we don't know what the actual situation was.
> Perhaps you can tell us if the Soviets in those summer, early fall of 1941 raids into Romania were opposed by Just the Romanian air force or were German fighter units there? The Germans did move units in later. Would the Soviets have been able to mount raids several hundred miles deep into German territory on the north end of the front?
> What were the AA defenses of the the oil refineries and Bridges in the summer of 1941? All of these things changed as the war went on.
> 
> BTW the PE-2 used at least three different setups for the 12.7mm gun out the back. So we are comparing what to what? 7.62mm gun to A, B or C?



It's really not that mysterious, IMO, at least for types that were in wide use. Once the number of sorties go up, and when the same types are used against the same types of targets, not just fortified defenses like at Brest (or Ploesti, or some of the German maritime targets in the Baltic) but also the more routine targets, you can, and they did, form fairly accurate impressions of their comparative viability. It also helps to listen to the crews, like this Doyle fellow.

The Soviets tried a wide variety of aircraft in the Tactical role, but only a few could survive long enough and do enough damage in the hellish environment of the Soviet-German war to be worth using. Pe-2 was probably their best in that role.



> The Hampden was used for low level attacks on certain targets.
> I will note that AP bombs don't work in low level attacks.



Great! I'd love to do a side by side comparison of damage done to the enemy compared to a Mosquito, a Pe 2, an A-20, or a Kittyhawk.

By the way, that brings me to another point - there are many missions for a bomber. There is Tactical bombing (tanks and infantry concentrations, big AT and AA guns, etc.), Operational bombing (Bridges and supply dumps, railheads and rail yards, airfields, ships and docks) and Strategic bombing (oil refineries, pipelines, factories). And then the are ancillary duties like mine laying or maritime patrol, recon, night intruder raids and so forth. And finally stuff like target tugs, liaison, and training which are where most of the failed designs end up. 

For a bomber type to be successful, it helps to be able to conduct at least two types of mission. Mosquitoes could do basically all of them.



> I would also note the PE-2 could dive bomb in theory. A good crew with a properly maintained/operating aircraft could dive bomb. A poor crew is not going to give good results and the dive brake retraction mechanism often malfunctioned leaving the plane with a top speed of 260-280kph. One reason some crews stopped using it as a dive bomber. perhaps later ones got the retraction system fixed?



Well that's true, it's also true of Douglas SBD and the Ju 88 and many other types. The Pe 2 did two types of dive bombing, the truly lethal high angle bombing with the dive brakes (which did impose penalties on most airframes), and the more shallow angle (but still fairly steep) bombing such as done by Kittyhawks and the like. Pe-2 could endure quite high speed so the latter method worked fairly well too.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 22, 2021)

By the way both Ki 48 and Ki 49 were used with success against Darwin, for example on May 12 1943. They held up fairly well (with Ki-43 escorts) against Spitfire Vs. They lost 1 Ki 49 and 1 Ki 43, with another Ki 49 and two Ki 48 crash landing on their return to base. Three Spitfires were also lost.


----------



## WARSPITER (Feb 26, 2021)

The other important factor when looking at this is psychological. The two highest scorers in this poll are perfect examples.

First, the B-25. An untried aircraft first used to hit back at Japan in the Doolittle raid. Morale wise this affected both the US and Japan. Tokyo and other cities
could be bombed as was shown. Japanese resources had to be diverted for future protection of the home islands and the B-25 was instantly famous. Look at the
models that have been made of these raiders over time.

Second, the Mosquito. The Spitfire was the symbol of the RAF victory in the Battle of Britain and the Mossie became the symbol of the RAF hitting back as far as
Germany itself. Bombing Berlin in broad daylight and being able to outrun interception was a morale boost for Britain and a downer for Germany. Again instant
fame for the Mossie as well.

Although these two raid examples did not cause much in material damage the dual effect at home and on the enemy is gold.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 27, 2021)

Totally agree, though the Beaufighter needs an honorable mention for this raid

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 27, 2021)

EK210 set up to test the Me 210 but flying Me 110 during the BoB apparently proved it could be as accurate as the Ju 87.


----------



## ThomasP (Feb 27, 2021)

As has been brought up already, the problem is what criteria are we to use?

If we are including *potential effect/effectiveness* of a design then there are many contenders. If we use *actual effect/effectiveness* then I would have to say it is a toss up between the Ju 88 and Wellington.

Both designs entered service pre-war.
Both designs were produced until the end of the war.
Both designs were produced in larger numbers than any other bomber by their respective users - with ~15,000x Ju 88 and ~11,000x Wellington.
Both designs remained largely unchanged other than detail mods and engines.
Both designs were used for multiple purposes:

Ju 88
light-medium bomber
dive bomber
torpedo bomber
reconnaissance (tactical and strategic)
heavy fighter
night fighter

Wellington
medium bomber (day and night)
torpedo bomber
reconnaissance (tactical and strategic)
maritime patrol & reconnaissance
pathfinder
EW/ELINT
operational training

In addition:

The Wellington had excellent range from day 1 of its service (long enough to reach and bomb Berlin with a useful bomb load), was easy to fly, very rugged and resistant to flak damage.

The Ju 88 also had excellent range (for its size and the mission it was designed for), was easy to fly(?), relatively rugged, and was fast - being as fast/almost as fast as fighters when it entered service.

Also, as far as I have read, both designs were pretty much universally well liked by their operators and crews.

I am sure I have missed some uses and qualities of the two designs.

(If we count the Mosquito as a medium bomber also, then I would say it is a toss up between the three types.)

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 27, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> As has been brought up already, the problem is what criteria are we to use?
> 
> If we are including potential effect/effectiveness of a design then there are many contenders. If we use actual effect/effectiveness then I would have to say it is a toss up between the Ju 88 and Wellington.
> 
> ...


With ref to the parts in bold The Ju 88 was just being introduced and developed in 1939/40, only 12 were used in Poland. In the BoB it was the least numerous of the three main types but suffered the most losses due to accidents and malfunctions. It became a great plane but had a lot of work done on it in its first year. Junkers Ju 88 - Wikipedia


----------



## ThomasP (Feb 27, 2021)

Hey pbehn,

Thanks for the info, I was not aware of the prolonged production start-up period. I admit I tend to count the start of the war as the invasion of France.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 27, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey pbehn,
> 
> Thanks for the info, I was not aware of the prolonged production start-up period. I admit I tend to count the start of the war as the invasion of France.


Even from reading the wiki article I think what happened with the Ju88 was similar to some allied aircraft when introduced, not fully sorted and crew not properly trained.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 27, 2021)

pbehn said:


> For various reasons the Mosquito got favourable treatment not afforded other bombers. Not only did it not use a "power egg" it had its own special Merlins. Conventional wisdom had it that a bomber should have a three man crew, the poor Hampden had four. To make the concept work he aircraft made design changes on everything that went in it, rather than the other way around.


The special Merlins weren’t more powerful than the standard production version. They had a revised cooling system to account for the higher mounting of the Mosquitoes radiators with respect to the engine.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 27, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The special Merlins weren’t more powerful than the standard production version. They had a revised cooling system to account for the higher mounting of the Mosquitoes radiators with respect to the engine.


And a reversed coolant flow to supply the leading edge radiators. which were on opposite sides of the engine. Not a huge difference but the exact opposite of the "power egg" philosophy.


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 27, 2021)

I wonder what the B-25 list of multiple purposes would look like. I can think of a few, especially the 75mm canon armed version, but I’m sure there are Forum members who are more familiar with the type.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 28, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I wonder what the B-25 list of multiple purposes would look like. I can think of a few, especially the 75mm canon armed version, but I’m sure there are Forum members who are more familiar with the type.


My favourite potential role? Glide bomb and torpedo platform.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 28, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> My favourite potential role? Glide bomb and torpedo platform.


Now that’s pretty neat. I thought the B-25 might have carried torpedoes. That’s an application I wasn’t aware of.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 28, 2021)

Why was the A-26 used in Vietnam and not the B-25?


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 28, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Why was the A-26 used in Vietnam and not the B-25?


Availability?


----------



## Schweik (Feb 28, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Now that’s pretty neat. I thought the B-25 might have carried torpedoes. That’s an application I wasn’t aware of.



They sunk some ships with those ...


----------



## Schweik (Feb 28, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Availability?



Speed, I think

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 28, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Why was the A-26 used in Vietnam and not the B-25?





Admiral Beez said:


> Why was the A-26 used in Vietnam and not the B-25?


The B-25 was completely out of USAF and USANG service by 1960


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 28, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Availability?


Very few B25s had survived the smelters by the time Vietnam got hot. Both B25 and A26 were numerous postwar, but A26 was the hands down favorite. One of the "grey eagles" that hung around the FBO where I instructed flew both during his USAF time. Said the A26 was a real sweetheart to fly; "stable as hell, yet maneuverable as hell, light, responsive, powerful flight controls, sweet engines, an intuitive flyer, and quicker 'n scat." He said he and his crew were returning from a long, hard, week of aggressor flying and bivouac living at a remote base exercise and were so exhausted that they all fell asleep as they were headed home. He disliked the autopilot and always handflew, as the bird would trim up super stable. He was shaken awake by his navigator, who pointed out they had flown 200 miles past their base. Took some "explaining" to the CO.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 28, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> As has been brought up already, the problem is what criteria are we to use?
> 
> If we are including *potential effect/effectiveness* of a design then there are many contenders. If we use *actual effect/effectiveness* then I would have to say it is a toss up between the Ju 88 and Wellington.
> 
> ...



What we are referring to here, I think, is versatility. Certainly one of the most important features of a bomber.

But not the only important feature. Wellington and Ju 88 were certainly highly versatile. Wellington gets extra points I think for very long range. Ju 88 for speed and performance, and bombing accuracy when used as a dive bomber. But many of the aircraft on the list up above fit those categories. Mosquito was arguably the most versatile of them all. But the second factor is, how critical of a role could it play in damaging the enemy? Mosquito could attack almost any target and destroy it.

Wellington had become mainly a night bomber and maritime patrol aircraft by the mid-war, and was no longer being used for Northern Europe after 1942. It was too slow and not well armed enough (good compliment of defensive guns but all .303) and was not on the front line in the MTO either by that point, I'm not sure about Pacific operations. Night bombers were of limited efficacy in actually hitting targets of military import. I think their most useful role was in the Battle of the Atlantic. But it had a lot of competition there- Sunderland, B-24, PBY etc. It's use as an early EW / and as coordination aircraft is also quite interesting and significant.

Ju-88s did everything, and was an accurate bomber which is important, but in spite of it's relatively good performance were proving too vulnerable to do most daytime missions, and by the mid war they were shifting to night fighter and maritime patrol / maritime strike aircraft. They stopped using them as a true dive bomber around the mid-war due to structural problems. Front line tactical bombing role was being taken over by (smaller, faster, better armored and more survivable) Fw 190s. The Ju 88 was still doing damage in strikes as late as 1944 but their most effective role was probably as a night fighter.

Any aircraft which was still being used through the end of the war was a good design, and both Wellington and Ju 88 certainly rate the top ten, IMO. But not the top 2.

*B-25 *
Medium bomber (day)
Strategic bomber (night - by the Russians)
Attack / CAS
Heavy strafer
Flying howitzer
Maritime strike (skip / masthead bomber)
Maritime patrol / ASW
Torpedo / glidebomber
Transport

Still effective against Japanese and Germans through the end of the war. Most effective as a strafer and masthead bomber in the Pacific, though it was also instrumental in destroying Axis airfields in Tunisia, Sicily and etc. Tough and well defended enough to survive daytime raids even against German fighter bases so long as they had escort.

*A-20 *
Light bomber (day)
Attack / CAS
Night fighter
Night intruder
Heavy strafer
Martime Strike (skip / masthead bomber)
Torpedo bomber (mainly by the Russians)

As with the B-25, the most useful role of the A-20 was as a maritime attack and low-level bombing aircraft in the Pacific. Smaller and faster than a B-25, it was the main weapon of the 5th Air Force. But it was an important maritime strike aircraft (torpedo bomber) for the Russians and played a significant role in the MTO both for the British and the Americans. G model in particular remained fast and agile enough, and still relatively well armed, to survive the daytime strike environment in Europe (again, with escorts). Which is saying something.

*Mosquito*
Fast light bomber (day or night)
Medium bomber
Pathfinder
Maritime patrol
Maritime strike
Night fighter
Night intruder
"Special attack" (Highball)
High speed photo recon
Heavy fighter
Torpedo bomber (tested but I don't think actually used as such)

Basically did everything, but one thing in particular that no other aircraft could do - long range, precision daytime strikes that actually hit their targets, and then survive to make it back to base. Lowest loss rate of bomber command, terror of the Luftwaffe after dark, and also the terror of the North Atlantic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 28, 2021)

So maybe another stab at criteria:

*Versatility *
Versatility - general (how many different roles was it used for)
Versatility - specific (in how many roles did it truly excel. In what was was it the best at what it did.)
*
Power*
Performance (speed, climb, dive altitude, range, maneuverability)
"Heaviness" of bombing (bomb load)
Range

*Impact*
Impact on the war (how many battles did it help win or significant strategic impacts did it have)
Bombing accuracy (Stuka / SBD level down to high altitude night bombing level)
Survivability (what was the mission loss rate)

*Strategic*
Sophistication of design (how innovative / advanced was the design)
Cost effectiveness (cost of producing vs. effectiveness in attacking the enemy)
Years in service (how many years was the aircraft actually fighting in the war)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 28, 2021)

Schweik said:


> They sunk some ships with those ...


With glide torpedoes or standard? I haven’t found any records of B25s mounting successful torpedo attacks.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 28, 2021)

With the GT-1, Wiki says they hit a carrier and two other ships

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 28, 2021)

I did a little thought experiment, and it ends up coming out with Mosquito 1st place, Ju 88 2nd, Wellington 3rd.

This is just a bit of guesswork, but I was a bit surprised myself how it came out, and it kind of rings true.

Mosquito is still clearly the standout. Wellington, in spite of the fact that's not the fastest or most accurate bomber, gains benefit for versatility, range, cost effectiveness and years in action. Ju 88 somewhat similar. The American bombers were good but limited by their range and somewhat small bomb load. Same for the Russian bombers, though they look pretty good too, especially the Pe 2 which had a significant impact for a long time.

A lot of this is a bit arbitrary so it could nudge this way or that of course. It's just a bit of structured guesswork. But I thought it was interesting.

.






EDIT: Slightly modified it to reflect time in front line service as well as time overall, with a second total reflecting merits without consideration of time in service (so more about the design) Top 3 still remain the same. Interesting that the top 3 are still the top 3 without considering time in service.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 28, 2021)

I really like that chart. I’m sure someone will argue this point or that but it’s a good attempt to quantify the unquantifiable.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 28, 2021)

Still thought the G4M would have done better. 
Does that mean I’m a fanboy?


----------



## Schweik (Feb 28, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Still thought the G4M would have done better.
> Does that mean I’m a fanboy?



I think the G4M was good - better than a lot of others I didn't include on the list. But it certainly had it's flaws and it peaked pretty early. By 1943 it wasn't much of a factor any more.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 28, 2021)

I did pick the B-25.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 28, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> With glide torpedoes or standard? I haven’t found any records of B25s mounting successful torpedo attacks.



Were there any successful torpedo attacks by USAAF aircraft? I believe they were tried with B-26s, but I believe that was it.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 28, 2021)

Apparently the glider bomb ones with B-25s. Several with PBYs but those were Navy or Marines I think.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 28, 2021)

Title of the thread is best medium bomber, not most versatile airframe.

How good or bad an airframe was as a night fighter should not make much difference to what kind of bomber it was.

There was a difference between European combat and pacific theater combat. Range was much more important in the Pacific. Planes that had good or very good records in Europe might have been near useless in the Pacific (or judged much more harshly) while some Pacific bombers (Japanese ones?) get judged harshly because of the compromises made to give them the long range needed.

The JU-88 is often overrated because it was so versatile. It was a very valuable resource for the Germans but as a bomber it often left something to be desired.
Most of the bomber versions weren't really all that fast, Most of them didn't have much range when carrying bombs inside, Most of them had pretty poor defensive armament.
Fortunately for the Germans most of the time their targets weren't very far away so the short range wasn't quite the handicap it might have been in other circumstances.
Over short distances (or medium) it could carry a pretty fair bomb load but had to do so with the bombs outside the plane so listed speeds are an illusion (at least for entering contested airspace).
How valuable it was as a long range day fighter or night fighter changes nothing about it's problems as a bomber.

B-25 sucked as a night fighter (if it was even ever tried?) but it was a pretty fair medium bomber.
It couldn't attack without escort (unless at night) but them most if not all medium bombers except the Mosquito (if that is a medium bomber) had the same problem.
A modified B-25C or D (belly turret taken out, one .50 cal out each side and one in the tail with a seated gunner) as done both in the Med and South East Pacific has a much better defensive set up than most non american bombers on the list. It still has the twin .50s in the power top turret.
A B-25C or D has just about 50% more fuel in the internal tanks than the JU-88. A JU-88A-4 might be just a touch faster at around 20,000ft but the B-25 might be faster at 15,000ft?
A lot depends on the load or gross weight of each and the JU-88 has to be running clean (no under fuselage or under wing bombs).

Yes the JU-88 can dive bomb but if it can't reach the target then what??


----------



## Schweik (Feb 28, 2021)

I don't disagree with most of that - in fact my main criticism of the Ju 88 is that it's most important service as a bomber was in the first couple of years of the war, by the late war they were mostly effective as a night fighter, long range fighter or maritime patrol aircraft.

However a couple of things. First, the bombing accuracy was high, and that really did matter. It turns out hitting the target is really _important_. It's also harder to do and rarer to find a machine which could be made to do it than I think many leaders even fully realized during the war. This is why the Germans were still using the obsolete, fixed undercarriage 200 mph Stuka so late in the war. We know from Allied records that Ju 88s often did hit their targets and caused a lot of harm. So that makes them a good bomber in my book.

You make a plane that can carry 10,000 lbs of bombs 10,000 miles, but if you can't hit anything it really doesn't help much as a bomber. Maybe UPS will buy it.

Versatility also does matter, even if it begins to define the aircraft out of the parameters of being a bomber at all. It's part of what really mattered to people fighting the war. A design that runs it's course in it's first intended role but then has a second or third or fourth life as a military aircraft is better overall.

I don't, by the way, remember ever claiming that a B-25 was used as a night fighter. They (mainly the British) did use the DB-7 / A-20 at that role, and I never said it was particularly good at it. I think it was active for most of 1941

By mid 1942, many existing bomber types couldn't survive a front line raid even _with_ escorts.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 28, 2021)

Also, the thing about having to carry bombs outside of the bomb bay and this affecting range and speed en-route to the target, this is hardly unique to the Ju 88. Many bombers had this problem, and even the ones with very large bomb bays which fit their whole load inside of it often actually flew at very slow cruising speeds en route to their targets anyway for various other reasons.

What was relatively rare about the Ju 88 is that after dropping it's bombs it had quite good performance, certainly compared to a Wellington or a Blenheim, or a He 111 say. And that is often when bombers were shot down. Ju 88 performance was good enough to evade fighters both before and after a strike, such as a Malta on a few occasions.

When they were using it as a dive-bomber that also seemed to help with survival a bit. Somewhat more dynamic form of attack and I think it was a little harder for AA to hit them.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 28, 2021)

pbehn said:


> And a reversed coolant flow to supply the leading edge radiators. which were on opposite sides of the engine. Not a huge difference but the exact opposite of the "power egg" philosophy.



How many Merlin aircraft had the "power egg"?

The Beaufighter II, certainly - because the power egg was designed for it.

The Lancaster I/III - converted Manchester to Lancaster quickly using the power egg.

The Miles M20. Designed around the power egg as an emergency fighter.

Did the Handley Page Halifax have them? Not in the early versions, at least.

Merlin Wellingtons didn't use them, nor did the Whitley.

Spitfire and Hurricane did not use them.

The Mosquito was trialled with them, but they were not adopted for production.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 28, 2021)

Didn't say you said the B-25 was used as a night fighter. Just pointing out that versitily, while often useful to war planners or air forces has little or no bearing on how well a bomber did it's original job. The B-25 was used mostly as a bomber or strafer, It did medium level attacks, low level attacks, most could carry a torpedo but the high quality US torpedo (sarcasm) prevented any success in that role, or even more than a handful of missions in that role. Russians used them as long range night bombers. 

We get into a lot of arguments about accuracy. If you can make a surprise attack (or be well escorted) then dive bombing can work very well against high value targets with not so good AA defense. BUT, you can't dive bomb at night or in bad weather (cloud cover) . If you don't have surprise the defence can create bad weather (poor visibility) with smoke generators. 
JU-88s did sink a lot ships, but it was at short ranges from their bases for the most part wasn't it? 

The Ju-88 seems to offer a lot flexibility but how much is an illusion? It can carry four 1100lb bombs outside but at max gross weight fuel capacity might be down to about 500 imp gallons? Cruising speeds with such a load was???? 
I know the JU-88-1 used rockets to get of the ground at high gross weights and some sources claim the A-4s did also, not sure about that though. 
Two 1100lbs might be just as effective and allow more fuel but you could put 2000-3000lb inside a B-25 and go 1200-1500 miles. 

The JU-88 had crap for defensive armament. 



Schweik said:


> _What was relatively rare about the Ju 88 is that after dropping it's bombs it had quite good performance, certainly compared to a Wellington or a Blenheim, or a He 111 say. _And that is often when bombers were shot down. Ju 88 performance was good enough to evade fighters both before and after a strike, such as a Malta on a few occasions.



Something seems a bit off, Ju-88 was good for 292mph at 17,390ft at 27,557lbs. Granted with bombs and 1/2 the fuel gone it would be a bit faster. But that is max speed and not max cruise or any speed that could be maintained for more the 5 minutes or so. Granted in combat you do what you have to do. But the Blenheim IV was good for 265mph or bit better. Is an extra 20 to 30mph the difference in survivability? (Yes the Wellington was bog slow) The He 111H-16 was supposed to do 270mph 19,685ft with bombs gone and 1/2 fuel. However this was down to 248mph at 6560 feet, I doubt the JU-88 was much more than 20-30mph faster at the same altitude. Maybe speeds in the high 200s are all that is needed?


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 28, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> As has been brought up already, the problem is what criteria are we to use?
> 
> If we are including *potential effect/effectiveness* of a design then there are many contenders. If we use *actual effect/effectiveness* then I would have to say it is a toss up between the Ju 88 and Wellington.
> 
> ...



The Weakness of the Ju 88 (and Ju 188) was the bomb bay. Internally it could only carry 50kg/110lb bombs (quite a few though) and perhaps a little known 65kg or 70kg bomb. Had it been a mid wing layout it might have carried say 2 x 500kg, 4 x 250kg or even 4 x 500kg internally. Even with only 1000kg/2200lbs internal it would have a great annoyance to the RAF as the bombs and their racks cost about 14% in speed.

The Ju 88S1 with a speed of 380mph would have been very hard to intercept but with external bombs it slowed down.

Of course the external bombs facilitated dive bombing and the amazing precision the Ju 88 often demonstrated but from 1942 that was completely superfluous and that slide bombing with the StuVi 5B bomb sight worked from a shallow dive.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 28, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The Ju 88S1 with a speed of 380mph would have been very hard to intercept but with external bombs it slowed down.



That was with the NO2 running and at higher altitudes than B-17s bombed at. Accuracy was going to be dismal.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 1, 2021)

Similar idea to the B-28, the planned successor to the B-25. Looked cool on paper, but only really at 25,000 ft

North American XB-28 Dragon - Wikipedia


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 1, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> That was with the NO2 running and at higher altitudes than B-17s bombed at. Accuracy was going to be dismal.



The Maximum speed of the Ju 88 S-1 was 610kmh/378mph at 8000m/26246ft when using GM-. That's only 1246ft higher than B17 altitude. (25,000ft). The bombing accuracy would be OK if they used the EGON-II blind bombing system or Zyklops and the Lotfe 7 was about as accurate as the Norden, certainly no worse than a Mosquito or B-17 at similar altitude. Note "GM-1" Nitrous Oxide was used above the full pressure altitude of the engine so it didn't 'hot rod' the engine mechanically and place undue stress on it, it only maintained power at full pressure altitude.

A hypothetical 378mph Ju 88S1 capable of carrying 1 ton of internal bombs penetrating at about 350mph was going to be a hard target especially if it used a speed dash or small dive. Many Ju 88S-1 were used as pathfinders and I presume the target markers fitted internally. Carrying full sized bombs had to be done extermally.

*From Wikipedia.de*
Schnellbomber mit strömungsgünstiger Glasnase und ohne Bodenwanne, nur ein 13-mm-MG 131 als Abwehrbewaffnung. Die Maschine war zum Einsatz über England und der Westfront vorgesehen; allerdings reichte die 1943 vielversprechende Geschwindigkeit 1944 nicht mehr aus, um feindlichen Jägern zu entgehen. Gleichzeitig wurde die Strahltriebwerkstechnologie serienreif, daher wurden nur eine kleine Serie Ju 88 S produziert, bevor die deutlich schnellere Arado Ar 234 mit Luftstrahltriebwerken vom Typ Jumo 004 als Schnellbomber zum Einsatz gelangte.


Ju 88 S-1: BMW 801 G-2 mit GM-1-Anlage, Höchstgeschwindigkeit ohne Bombenlast ca. 600 km/h in 6000 m, mit GM-1 ca. 610 km/h in 8000 m, verfügbar ab Herbst 1943
Ju 88 S-2: statt GM-1 mit Triebwerksanlage BMW 801 TJ mit Turbolader, ohne GM-1-Anlage, verfügbar ab Frühjahr 1944
Ju 88 S-3: Jumo 213 A mit GM-1-Anlage, Höchstgeschwindigkeit ohne Bombenlast ca. 600 km/h in 6000 m, mit GM-1 ca. 615 km/h in 9000 m, wenige Maschinen verfügbar ab Spätsommer 1944
*Translated version:*
Fast bomber with low-flow glass nose and without bottom tub, only a 13 mm MG 131 as defensive armament. The aircraft was intended for use over England and the Western Front; however, the promising speed of 1943 in 1944 was no longer sufficient to escape enemy hunters. At the same time, the jet engine technology was ready for series production, so only a small series Ju 88 S was produced before the significantly faster Arado Ar 234 with Jumo 004 air jet engines was used as a fast bomber.

Ju 88 S-1: BMW 801 G-2 with GM-1 system, top speed without bomb load approx. 600 km/h in 6000 m, with GM-1 approx. 610 km/h in 8000 m, available from autumn 1943.
Ju 88 S-2: instead of GM-1 with engine system BMW 801 TJ with turbocharger, without GM-1 system, available from spring 1944.
Ju 88 S-3: Jumo 213 A with GM-1 system, top speed without bomb load approx. 600 km/h in 6000 m, with GM-1 approx. 615 km/h in 9000 m, few machines available from late summer 1944.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 1, 2021)

Bombing from high altitude just didn't (and doesn't) work that well regardless of the bombsights, because of clouds, fog, wind, smoke generated on the ground, etc.

Laser guided or GPS guided helps but I don't think even those are dropped from 25,000 feet.


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 1, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Bombing from high altitude just didn't (and doesn't) work that well regardless of the bombsights, because of clouds, fog, wind, smoke generated on the ground, etc.
> 
> Laser guided or GPS guided helps but I don't think even those are dropped from 25,000 feet.



From what I’ve heard they drop from high altitude. Remember a lot of the ground level over there is in the 4k+ range, so subtract that from drop altitude. Also being high conserves gas, which in turn allows longer station times, which means fewer airframes need to be used, and fewer tankers.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## METTATON6662 (Mar 12, 2021)

I would like to know more about the tu-2, since I heard it was similar to the pe 2 but had a better performance and payload


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 12, 2021)

METTATON6662 said:


> I would like to know more about the tu-2, since I heard it was similar to the pe 2 but had a better performance and payload



It should, it weighed about 50-55% more. 
Due to both shortages of engines and factory space it didn't really have much impact on the war until 1944-45, and even then, while successful, it wasn't used in large numbers compared to other Soviet aircraft. Again, not a reflection on the design, it is a result of the numbers available and/or used. About 1/2 of the total number produced were built after the Germans surrendered.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> It should, it weighed about 50-55% more.
> Due to both shortages of engines and factory space it didn't really have much impact on the war until 1944-45, and even then, while successful, it wasn't used in large numbers compared to other Soviet aircraft. Again, not a reflection on the design, it is a result of the numbers available and/or used. About 1/2 of the total number produced were built after the Germans surrendered.



There was no shortage of M-82 engines; Soviets were trying to install it in 1942 in everything promising the good return of investment - Il-2, Pe-2, Yak-7, LaGG-3, Pe-8 - since the Su-2 (the main perspective recipient of the M-82) was cancelled by winter of 1941/42. The 1st Tu-2 were also with technical problems, the main (at least per Russian-language Wikipedia) were the problems with undercarriage, that were rectified by copying the system used on Li-2 /= licence-produced DC-3); internal wiring and lighting was also redesigned. But yes, it took until 1944 for the Tu-2 to matter in ww2.

But, to answer the question - Tu-2 was designed as a bomber from day one, with a decent bomb bay (still nothing special), and was able to carry a few times greater bomb- and fuel-load and gun firepower. Same source as above notes that Tu-2 in engine-out situation was a better thing than Pe-2 in the same situation.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 14, 2021)

METTATON6662 said:


> I would like to know more about the tu-2, since I heard it was similar to the pe 2 but had a better performance and payload


I suggest starting with the Wiki article. And then, if you have time, to Google translate Russian article on Wiki. And if you are interested in the full story from the first prototype, until the post-WWII development, you could Google Translate articles from this source:
Бомбардировщики Второй Мировой
There are several articles in the list.
The first: Туполев ФБ ("103") Фронтовой бомбардировщик.
The last: Туполев ТУ-10 Скоростной пикирующий бомбардировщик




The Tu-2 story is interesting (besides the fact that it was designed by the prisoners de-jure). Most teething problems were resolved and serial production began in April-May 1942 but in October NKAP (Aviation Ministry) ordered to stop. According to the head of NKAP Shakhurin, it was the decision of Stalin and the official reason was the urgent necessity to produce more fighters. Yet this version contradicted other memoirs of Shakhurin himself and of other decision-makers who wrote about the deficit of bombers since spring 1942 and attempts to turn almost every fighter type into a fighter bomber. Ironically, 20 days after the production suspension, a heavy multipage document was delivered to Kremlin - the full report about the frontline tests of Tu-2 (80 a/c produced, 63 a/c delivered to VVS). That report praised the new bomber highly.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 14, 2021)

Basically the Russians built about 80 Tu-2s in 1942 and then for various reasons (none having to do with the performance of the aircraft) stopped. 
Production didn't start again until well into 1943 and that was at a low rate. 16 aircraft delivered by the end of 1943 and only 1,013 were built (including the 80 in 1942) by the end of the war in 1945. 
At the beginning of 1945 one book claims 278 Tu-2s were on strength with the Soviet Air Army Force, 264 of them operational. Two bomber air divisions and one long range reconnaissance regiment were the main users at the time. The Tu-2 made up 9% of the Russian bomber strength at the time. 

Another 1,514 aircraft were completed after the war.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 15, 2021)

The Tu 2 has one feature that makes it better than the Ju 88/188 and that is an internal bomb bay that can handle full sized bombs allowing the aircraft to maintain high speed. The Ju 88 was a low wing monoplane and this subdivided the bomb bay due to the wing spars. The biggest internal bomb was a 70kg (usually fragmentation type useful for a battlefield). Carrying external underwing bombs would likely reduce speed from 315mph for the Ju 188E1 by 10%-13% for 4 x 250 or 4 x 500 or 2 x 1000.

The low wing no doubt kept the Ju 88 fuselage strong for the 60 degree dives it was designed for. Worth considering that the Ju 88S1 was capable of 600kmh/372mph at 6000m/19700ft without GM-1 nitrous oxide and 610kmh/378mph at 8000m/26200ft with GM-1. Had this aircraft a bomb bay it would have been a difficult target even over Britain. It was however used as a pathfinder where it’s bomb bay restrictions weren’t too limiting.

Having said that, the Ju 88 was available throughout the war and the Tu 2 barely so. The Ju 388 received a ventral Panier to carry bombs with modest drop in speed.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 16, 2021)

The Soviet's Arkhangeleski Ar-2 held potential, it was fast (for 1940) and was capable of dive-bombing and could carry over 3,500lbs of bombs, but the Pe-2 overshadowed it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 16, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The Soviet's Arkhangeleski Ar-2 held potential, it was fast (for 1940) and was capable of dive-bombing and could carry over 3,500lbs of bombs, but the Pe-2 overshadowed it.



There's always the political side of Soviet procurement, some good prototypes got nowhere because of Stalin.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 16, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> There's always the political side of Soviet procurement, some good prototypes got nowhere because of Stalin.


It’s rare to read about a Soviet design in which the initial designer wasn’t consigned permanently to a gulag, or working from one (like Tupolov) or in the case of the project manager for the MiG 3 was actually executed. It was much easier for aeronautical engineer under Hitler it seems. Imagine the Me 210 delays or Me 262 bomber fiasco under Stalin. Willy Messerschmitt was probably lucky to avoid prison over the Me 210 affair but ended up loosing control of his company.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 16, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The Soviet's Arkhangeleski Ar-2 held potential, it was fast (for 1940) and was capable of dive-bombing and could carry over 3,500lbs of bombs, but the Pe-2 overshadowed it.


The AR-2 may be being oversold.
Basically it was an improved SB which first flew in 1934.
Major change was that it got M-105 engines with the radiators in the wings (and much more streamlined nacelles) for a huge reduction drag. 
another change was a slightly smaller wing (reduction in span and area)
One book claims that while the max bomb load was 1500kg (without saying how it was carried) the max range with 500kg (1102lbs) of bombs was over 1304 miles (2100km).
However range with 1000kg (2204lbs) of bombs was 621 miles (1000km).
Armament may be in dispute, nose had one gun instead of two on the SB bombers but table still lists four guns? 
Weight is within a few hundred pounds of a Blenheim MK IV. 
Maybe you could stuff/hang 3300-3500 lbs on it but you aren't going to go very far with an under 15,000lb airplane (or go very fast if the bombs are outside)?


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 16, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Worth considering that the Ju 88S1 was capable of 600kmh/372mph at 6000m/19700ft without GM-1 nitrous oxide and 610kmh/378mph at 8000m/26200ft with GM-1. *Had* this aircraft a bomb bay it would have been a difficult target even over Britain.



HAD the Mosquito used nitrous oxide (Rolls Royce did experiment with it) the Mosquito could have flown even higher and faster than it did while still carrying a useful bombload. 

Most of the "improved" Ju-88s fall into a never-never land between reality and "what ifs". 

From wiki so corrections welcome JU 388 production


6 Ju 388 prototypes, 2 each for J-1, K-1 and L-1
20 Ju 388 L-0, including prototypes V7, V8, V30 - V34
10 Ju 388 K-0, first batch, including two converted to the Ju 488 V401/V402 prototypes (never flown)
1 Ju 388 K-1 manufactured by ATG for static tests in July 1944
46 Ju 388 L-1 manufactured by ATG in 1944
8+ Ju 388 L-1 manufactured by ATG in 1945
10 Ju 388 L-1 (max.) manufactured by Weserflug (WFG), initially planned as K-1
More aircraft and prototypes were planned and partially completed:


10 Ju 388 K-0, second batch, some prototypes, partially completed
30 Ju 388 K-0, third batch, planned, only few units completed
So a plane with 50-70 examples built is a contender for best medium bomber or WW II?


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 16, 2021)

The Ju488 seems an awful lot of plane and engines to carry 3 tons of bombs.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 16, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> The Ju488 seems an awful lot of plane and engines to carry 3 tons of bombs.


But dive bombing from 30,000 ft ensured complete accuracy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Mar 16, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> HAD the Mosquito used nitrous oxide (Rolls Royce did experiment with it) the Mosquito could have flown even higher and faster than it did while still carrying a useful bombload.



Mosquitos did use Nitrous Oxide on operations:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Cunningham_85squadron_2Jan44-nitrous-oxide.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/96sqdn_Head_22march44_Nitrous-Oxide.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Parker-Rees-96sqdn-13-14April44-N2O.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 16, 2021)

Mike Williams said:


> Mosquitos did use Nitrous Oxide on operations:
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Cunningham_85squadron_2Jan44-nitrous-oxide.jpg
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/96sqdn_Head_22march44_Nitrous-Oxide.jpg
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Parker-Rees-96sqdn-13-14April44-N2O.jpg



Yes, I learned about these from you site years ago. These were Mosquitos with single stage Merlins (Merlin 24?) . What was there speed advantage over a Ju 88S1. I would assume about 400mph over 378mph (about 22mph or about 6%)

Do you have any data on what the speed of these hotrod Mosquitos was? I noted the pilots engaged the Nitrous at quite a low altitude.



fastmongrel said:


> The Ju488 seems an awful lot of plane and engines to carry 3 tons of bombs.



It was to do it at 48500ft and 3000kg is was more than a B17.

I think the internal bombload of the Ju 388 and early Ju 488 V401 was both about 2000kg (maybe 3000kg if armour piercing bombs) but the Jumo 222 version of the Ju 488 it was 5000kg



pbehn said:


> But dive bombing from 30,000 ft ensured complete accuracy.



Probably 44000ft as the service ceiling with BMW 801TJ was estimated at 48500ft (Black Cross Publications Ju 288/388/488)

I imagine an electronic blind bombing aid would be used and the main source of inaccuracy would be high altitudes winds the bombs would experience mid way in their fall.
25mph side wind produces about 85ft error from 20,000ft. There is always the possibility of a guided weapon.



Shortround6 said:


> So a plane with 50-70 examples built is a contender for best medium bomber or WW II?



The Ju 388 was essentially still a Ju 88/188 with pressurisation. It served from 1939 all the way to 1945 and in the form of the Ju 388 would have still been competitive.


----------



## Mike Williams (Mar 16, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Yes, I learned about these from you site years ago. These were Mosquitos with single stage Merlins (Merlin 24?) . What was there speed advantage over a Ju 88S1. I would assume about 400mph over 378mph (about 22mph or about 6%)
> 
> Do you have any data on what the speed of these hotrod Mosquitos was? I noted the pilots engaged the Nitrous at quite a low altitude.



Here's more docs on performance of Mosquitos using Nitrous Oxide.
Power Boosting By Nitrous Oxide 
Injection of N2O into Merlin 25 engine fitted to Mosquito XIX aircraft 
Flight Tests of N2O Power Boosting Mosquito XIII Merlin 23
Fwiw, Nitrous Oxide - Ricardo & Co.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 16, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Probably 44000ft as the service ceiling with BMW 801TJ was estimated at 48500ft (Black Cross Publications Ju 288/388/488)
> 
> I imagine an electronic blind bombing aid would be used and the main source of inaccuracy would be high altitudes winds the bombs would experience mid way in their fall.
> 25mph side wind produces about 85ft error from 20,000ft. There is always the possibility of a guided weapon..


This is fantasy, just adding black crosses to a plane that didn't fly in black cross publications doesn't change the laws of physics. A three ton bomb load isn't much in strategic terms, taking three tons of bombs to 48,000 ft is a dream with 1944 piston engine tech. You cannot hit anything dropping a dumb bomb from 48,000 ft over Europe and no guided bomb could either.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 16, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> It’s rare to read about a Soviet design in which the initial designer wasn’t consigned permanently to a gulag, or working from one (like Tupolov) or in the case of the project manager for the MiG 3 was actually executed.


Let's not forget Lavochkin, who was saved from the "Stalin Flu" by the nose of a Su-2.
Then there was Kalinin, who did get the "Stalin Flu"...


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 16, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> The AR-2..
> One book claims that while the max bomb load was 1500kg (without saying how it was carried)



the 1,500 kg load was one 500 kg in the bay and one each under the wings, or two 250 kg in the bay and two each under the wings
it can also load 8x100 internal and 4x100 external

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 16, 2021)

Hey Koopernic,

Because I am an AR type, and as a matter of passing interest:

The below assumes a falling time of 35.35 sec from 20,000 ft release height, with an average acceleration due to gravity vs aerodynamic drag of 32 ft/sec^2.

If the dropping aircraft has a sideways vector of 25 mph at time of bomb release, then the point of impact due to this sideways motion would be 1296 ft off to the side of the aim point.

If the aircraft has 0 sideways vector at time of drop, then the bomb's point of impact would be about 648 ft (assuming the bomb has a 25 mph sideways velocity at impact).

If we add the minimum practical optical line of sight error (plus or minus 1/2 degree) for the (pick any bombing system you feel was the best) bombing system (ie aircraft-bomb sight combination) that saw service in WWII, you have to add +/-174 ft to the point of impact. WWII blind bombing systems were significantly less accurate in terms of minimum achievable aiming error. The reason I say minimum practical achievable is that there really was no practical method of aircraft-bomb sight calibration that could reliably achieve more than plus-or-minus 1/2 degree LOS error. (As far as I know. If anyone has better information please let me know.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 16, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> The AR-2 may be being oversold.
> Basically it was an improved SB which first flew in 1934.
> Major change was that it got M-105 engines with the radiators in the wings (and much more streamlined nacelles) for a huge reduction drag.
> another change was a slightly smaller wing (reduction in span and area)
> ...



In my opinion, Ar-2 could become (at least) a good interim frontline bomber until Tu-2.
Ar-2 could dive well, as mentioned by GrauGeist, also with max bombload of 6x250kg or 3x500kg. Interesting to note that some diving equipment was copied from Ju 88. Carried more than Pe-2, was easier to fly - even easier than SB-2, lower landing speed, etc.
It has lost the competition to Pe-2 due to somewhat lower speed. Was it so important in the real war? I don't think so, Pe-2 without the escort was very vulnerable anyway. Another advantage of Ar-2: former SB-2 pilots could begin to operate them quickly. 
I'd place Ar-2 in the category of _"I coulda' been a contender"_ aircraft. Promising but not allowed to realize its full potential due to external circumstances. Same as Tu-2, by the way.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 16, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> HAD the Mosquito used nitrous oxide (Rolls Royce did experiment with it) the Mosquito could have flown even higher and faster
> So a plane with 50-70 examples built is a contender for best medium bomber or WW II?





pbehn said:


> This is fantasy, just adding black crosses to a plane that didn't fly in black cross publications doesn't change the laws of physics. A three ton bomb load isn't much in strategic terms, taking three tons of bombs to 48,000 ft is a dream with 1944 piston engine tech. You cannot hit anything dropping a dumb bomb from 48,000 ft over Europe and no guided bomb could either.



The Ju 388 with BMW 801TJ-1 engines had a service ceiling of 44000ft and in fact managed 46000ft. The Ju 488, which added an additional pair of engines and wing roots plugged in to the Ju 388 wing had lower wing loading, higher aspect ratio etc.

You should study the BMW 801TJ. Unlike most turbo charged engines it retained its two speed supercharger and added a large turbo charger with a very significant intercooler on top. Hence its critical altitude was very high, competitive with the R3350 at very high altitude.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 16, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The Ju 388 with BMW 801TJ-1 engines had a service ceiling of 44000ft and in fact managed 46000ft. The Ju 488, which added an additional pair of engines and wing roots plugged in to the Ju 388 wing had lower wing loading, higher aspect ratio etc.
> 
> You should study the BMW 801TJ. Unlike most turbo charged engines it retained its two speed supercharger and added a large turbo charger with a very significant intercooler on top. Hence its critical altitude was very high, competitive with the R3350 at very high altitude.


How does a plane that didn't go into service have a service ceiling? Did BMW get their incredibly complex engine working for hours continuously at 48,000ft? The Americans had a lot of troubles with the B-29 and a lot more resources to fettle them. The Ju488 had a similar wing span to a Lancaster about 40 ft less than a B-29, it was no more a WW2 bomber than the B-36.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 16, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey Koopernic,
> 
> Because I am an AR type, and as a matter of passing interest:
> 
> ...



Slight correction I should have said 91 meters (300ft). This assumes the wind drift of the bomber has been nulled out and that the bomb is accelerated by wind:

Bombsight - Wikipedia
The M65 *(US GP 500lb bomb)* will be dropped from a Boeing B-17 flying at 322 km/h (200 mph) at an altitude of 6096 m (20,000 feet) in a 42 km/h (25 mph) wind. Given these conditions, the M65 would travel approximately 1981 m (6,500 feet) forward before impact,[8] for a *trail of about 305 m (1000 feet) *from the vacuum range,[9] and impact with a velocity of 351 m/s (1150 fps) at an angle of about 77 degrees from horizontal.[10] A 42 km/h (25 mph) wind would be expected to move the bomb about* 91 m (300 feet)* during that time.[11] The time to fall is about 37 seconds.[12]

It seems to work out if you assume a certain bomb Cd.A and run it through the drag equation.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 16, 2021)

*Service* ceiling is simple the altitude at which a plane can still climb at 100fpm (or the metric equivalent) 
It can vary enormously depending on the weight of the aircraft. A detail that seems to be lacking in some descriptions of the German bombers. 
Some other German bombers had service ceilings that varied by thousands of feet depending on load status, could egress thousands of feet higher than the ingress. This is true of just about all bombers to a greater or lesser extent. 

Early B-17s had service ceilings of around 37,000ft but later ones lost several thousand feet ceiling. Later ones were "rated" at 54-55,000lbs while they were taking off on long range missions at over 70,000lbs ceiling was??????

Please note that at such altitudes if the plane does ANY maneuver (bank and turn) that the excess power (the power available to climb at 100fpm) cannot compensate for the plane WILL descend. Please note also that this ceiling is achieved while running the engine at max climb or max continuous rating. Much longer range can be achieved at even somewhat lower altitudes with much less fuel burn.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 16, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Slight correction I should have said 91 meters (300ft). This assumes the wind drift of the bomber has been nulled out and that the bomb is accelerated by wind:
> 
> Bombsight - Wikipedia
> The M65 *(US GP 500lb bomb)* will be dropped from a Boeing B-17 flying at 322 km/h (200 mph) at an altitude of 6096 m (20,000 feet) in a 42 km/h (25 mph) wind. Given these conditions, the M65 would travel approximately 1981 m (6,500 feet) forward before impact,[8] for a *trail of about 305 m (1000 feet) *from the vacuum range,[9] and impact with a velocity of 351 m/s (1150 fps) at an angle of about 77 degrees from horizontal.[10] A 42 km/h (25 mph) wind would be expected to move the bomb about* 91 m (300 feet)* during that time.[11] The time to fall is about 37 seconds.[12]
> ...




High altitude bombing assumes/depends on the air between the bomber and the ground moving at a constant speed at all altitudes and in a constant direction at all altitudes. 
It doesn't matter how good the navigation aids are or how fancy the bomb sight is if the wind direction/s and speeds at several intervening altitudes are unknown to the bomb aimers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 17, 2021)

Hey Koopernic,

Thanks for the link.

So I overestimated the longitudinal drag factor by about 2.5% and underestimated the lateral drag factor by about 50%. Correcting to the values implied by the Wiki link, the sideways velocity would be about 12 mph at impact.

My point is that the accuracy to be expected when bombing from high altitude is very much higher than in your original post. There was no level bomb sight/aircraft system operational (or planned as far as I am aware) in WWII that could (sort of reliably in training) achieve a 300 ft CEP from higher than about 10,000 ft. Obviously the CEP would be much greater from 40,000 ft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 17, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> High altitude bombing assumes/depends on the air between the bomber and the ground moving at a constant speed at all altitudes and in a constant direction at all altitudes.
> It doesn't matter how good the navigation aids are or how fancy the bomb sight is if the wind direction/s and speeds at several intervening altitudes are unknown to the bomb aimers.



The wind drift at mid altitude can be estimated by dropping bombs with smoke trails (as the USAAF did) or meteorological reconnaissance aircraft flying at intermediate level or having a 'master bomber' correct the aim of subsequent bomb impacts. Ultimately there were a number of guided weapons projects as well. 

Wurzburg radars received the "Windlaus" circuit to replace the wurzlaus coherent pulse doppler to overcome 'windows' jamming. The Windlaus circuit could offset high altitude wind that was causing a doppler shift. Given that many targets would be in radar range even this could be used to measure wind speed for some targets. German anti Windows circuits came our of weather radar research and research to find target aircraft in ground clutter because after the German development of "duppel" (jamming with aluminium strips) research was banned as a security measure.

Either way some measure of compensation of winds at intermediate altitudes could be found. Id say even dive bombing. A 25 degree dive might add 80m/s downward velocity that would cut bomb fall time by 1/3rd.

So long as an accurate position is known an aircraft can pick up a target marker and calculate prevailing winds from that.

It can be done.


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 17, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> My point is that the accuracy to be expected when bombing from high altitude is very much higher than in your original post. There was no level bomb sight/aircraft system operational (or planned as far as I am aware) in WWII that could (sort of reliably in training) achieve a 300 ft CEP from higher than about 10,000 ft. Obviously the CEP would be much greater from 40,000 ft.



Especially considering the complications of operational reality. The Norden bombsight worked great in training over the clear skies of Arizona. But when faced with the often-cloudy skies over Europe, faced enemy fighters or flak, with decoys and smoke screens, accuracy in actual combat was far lower.

Weather by far was the biggest factor in visual bombing. Which is why the USAAF had to develop non-visual bombing equipment (i.e. H2X) and tactics in order to be able to bomb with any degree of useful frequency.

But regardless of all that, by 1945 Germany was in no position to bomb much of anything given the military and economic realities at that point, so what the aircraft could have done seems unsubstantiated speculation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 17, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey Koopernic,
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> ...




I think that is the case for average crews or is the result of the formation 'spreading' the bombs. I'll quote two exceptions
1 Convoy Faith in 1943 using Lotfe 7 computing bombsights.. The three Condors made their attack from an altitude of about 15,000 feet against moving ships . They had 3 hits on moving merchant ships out of about 6 bomb runs had about a 50% hit rate with typically two sometime 4 bombs dropped per run. The misses were often straddles or they were the ones directed against sloops and frigates which were fast enough to manoeuvre out of the way.
2 Operation Tungsten. I think 42 Lancaster dropped bombs on Tirpitz, a Stationary elliptical target about 285m long and 28m wide from staggered altitudes of between 12000 to 16000ft with several hits or near misses. (also some fantastic misses as well)

As soon as you start talking CEP remember if 16 aircraft drop 48 x 1000kg bombs. Then 24 might be outside the CEP circle and 24 in it but 2 to 3 might smack be on target.

If this is a 1000kg bomb it has a big destructive circle. If the B17 or B-24 had of been dropping 4000lb and 8000lb cookies and block busters the destructive blast radius might have exceeded the CEP of the Norden. As it was a formation of bombers spread the load and dropped a tail of 6 bombs.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 17, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Especially considering the complications of operational reality. The Norden bombsight worked great in training over the clear skies of Arizona. But when faced with the often-cloudy skies over Europe, faced enemy fighters or flak, with decoys and smoke screens, accuracy in actual combat was far lower.
> 
> Weather by far was the biggest factor in visual bombing. Which is why the USAAF had to develop non-visual bombing equipment (i.e. H2X) and tactics in order to be able to bomb with any degree of useful frequency.
> 
> But regardless of all that, by 1945 Germany was in no position to bomb much of anything given the military and economic realities at that point, so what the aircraft could have done seems unsubstantiated speculation.




Just like to say I'm not a proponent of pickle barrel accuracy from the stratosphere. However when a visual sighting was possible computing bomb sights could be very accurate so long as the crew was well trained to apply the bombing procedure under the extreme stress of being under and fire (which 633 squadron could). I note that Little Boy (Edit Fatman) was ordered to be dropped by visual bombing. The crew swapped to radar bombing (they were supposed to abort) and then swapped back to the Norden because they got a clear view. I got dragged into this because I defended the Ju 388 being in this 'vote' because it was still in essence a Ju 88. I mentioned the Ju 488 as a derivative with excellent operational and service ceiling.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 17, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> I note that Little Boy was ordered to be dropped by visual bombing. The crew swapped to radar bombing (they were supposed to abort) and then swapped back to the Norden because they got a clear view.


I just reread that episode yesterday. Check it out. I think you just described Fat Man at Nagasaki, delivered by Col. Sweeney and Bock's Car.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 17, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> As soon as you start talking CEP remember if 16 aircraft drop 48 x 1000kg bombs. Then 24 might be outside the CEP circle and 24 in it but 2 to 3 might smack be on target.



Two or three bombs on a factory isn't going to do much. Hence why strategic bombing involved hundreds of bombers and thousands of bombs aimed at one target. And even then the capacity for recovery by an industrialized nation-state were enormous.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 17, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Two or three bombs on a factory isn't going to do much. Hence why strategic bombing involved hundreds of bombers and thousands of bombs aimed at one target. And even then the capacity for recovery by an industrialized nation-state were enormous.


Also, there were frequently other means or methods. For example with ball bearings the Americans didn't know if they had completely flattened Schweinfurt whether Germany could source ball bearings from Sweden or Switzerland.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Also, there were frequently other means or methods. For example with ball bearings the Americans didn't know if they had completely flattened Schweinfurt whether Germany could source ball bearings from Sweden or Switzerland.



Or that, in many cases, the ball bearings could be replaced by plain bearings.

The problem for the 8th AF at that time was that the losses on that mission prevented a timely follow up mission.

The RAF was supposed to bomb Schweinfurt later in the evening, but they went to Peenemünde instead.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 18, 2021)

wuzak said:


> The RAF was supposed to bomb Schweinfurt later in the evening, but they went to Peenemünde instead.


Higher priority, ATC.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 18, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Higher priority, ATC.


Ball bearings, Peenemunde, V1 and V2 silos, submarine pens, shipbuilding, Tirpitz and other surface raiders, Aircraft production, oil production and processing, rail road and canal transportation, electricity production and grid, tank production, tank formations. The list of "top priority targets" was almost endless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Ball bearings, Peenemunde, V1 and V2 silos, submarine pens, shipbuilding, Tirpitz and other surface raiders, Aircraft production, oil production and processing, rail road and canal transportation, electricity production and grid, tank production, tank formations. The list of "top priority targets" was almost endless.


Well, with the advantage of hindsight, the petroleum offensive had more potential benefit than the ball bearing one, and any opportunity to impact the V-weapons programs shouldn't be overlooked.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 18, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Well, with the advantage of hindsight, the petroleum offensive had more potential benefit than the ball bearing one, and any opportunity to impact the V-weapons programs shouldn't be overlooked.


From the very start the RAF and later USAAF targeted oil as much as they were able, it is a massive task, but there is no doubt at all targets concerning the battle of the Atlantic took priority.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 18, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Well, with the advantage of hindsight, the petroleum offensive had more potential benefit than the ball bearing one, and any opportunity to impact the V-weapons programs shouldn't be overlooked.



A sustained campaign against German electricity production could have had just as much of an impact.

Arguably, the attack on the transportation network was essentially attacking all other system targets simultaneously. It doesn't matter how much oil you can refine if you can't move it from the refineries to where it's needed. It doesn't matter how much coal you can dig out of the ground if you can't get it to the electrical generating plants and steel mills and rail yards.

Of course, you first have to win air superiority in order to get your bombers to where you want them within acceptable loss rates . . .

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 18, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Two or three bombs on a factory isn't going to do much. Hence why strategic bombing involved hundreds of bombers and thousands of bombs aimed at one target. And even then the capacity for recovery by an industrialized nation-state were enormous.



I merely used the case of 16 bombers dropping 48 x 1000kg bombs as an example of the statistics of bomb drops. Within the CEP the distribution of bombs, if it follows a gaussian 'bell curve' distribution (Rayleigh in 2 dimensions) is surprisingly even with a slight clustering around the centre. If you have a CEP of 300m/1000ft that means if 48 bombs are dropped, 24 are within a 300m/1000ft circle which roughly equals one 1000kg bomb per hectare. The bomb centres would be separated by 100m/300ft and no point would be less than 50m/160ft from a 1000kg blast. 

If the Luftwaffe had of tried sustained strategic raids against UK targets with the BMW 801TJ engine version of the Ju 488 (I'll call it the Ju 488 V401 to differentiate it from the faster but lower flying Jumo 222 engine versions) I suspect it would have been a Kampfgruppe (4 x Staffels, i.e. 4 x 12 aircraft i.e. total of 48) and so we would see 144 x 1000kg bombs. With this density we are starting to get into some serious damage. I don't think the jet stream was a problem over the UK as Japan. In the 30% of days visibility was adequate such results might be achieved half the time.

With a service ceiling of 48,500ft I would imagine they would be able to attack at about 10% less (usually a good estimate of operational ceiling) i.e. 44,000ft. No RAF or USAAF fighter had a service ceiling above this. The RAF's Spitfire XIV had a service ceiling of 43500ft and might be modified with the extended wing tips of the Mk VII, guns apart form the Hispano's stripped and G restrictions applied (for the wing tips) but it would be a difficult intercept. The Ju 488, unlike the Ju 86 was armed.

The Luftwaffe did use Ju 86R reconnaissance aircraft (which could still carry a 250kg bomb) on harassment raids over the UK in 1942 and no doubt was aware of the problems of bombing accuracy from those heights.

There was an extreme high altitude program aimed at flight over 15000m/50,000ft throughout the war and it lead to aircraft such as the BV.155 (service ceiling 55,610ft), the Ju 86, Ju 388, Ju 488 and He 274 and a turbo charger development program focused on extreme altitudes. It sometimes gets called the Hubertus program and the engine test cells which could produced temperatures as low as -60, low pressures and high wind speeds that were developed for piston engines turned out to be useful for axial jet engine development. After they were captured they were shipped to the UK and USA and I think may still be in use. The British put them to immediate use in Germany in fact before dismantling them.

Part of that high altitude program was a realisation that guided weapons would be needed. Fritz-X had versions that were designed to home on radar or Loran (Raddischien, guidance tested on a BV.244 glide bomb) ) and infrared (intended for blast furnaces and power stations in the UK)


----------



## pbehn (Mar 18, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The Luftwaffe did use Ju 86R reconnaissance aircraft (which could still carry a 250kg bomb) on harassment raids over the UK in 1942 and no doubt was aware of the problems of bombing accuracy from those heights.


They did, until one was hit by a Spitfire and they did drop a 250kg bomb, which is why I questioned your 3 ton bomb load for Ju488s. Aerodynamics, power generation and cooling at 48,000 ft was experimental. At these altitudes measurement in feet or meters is academic, you are in a different atmosphere at 48,000 ft over Egypt than you are over UK. BTW as you know but didn't say the JU 86 used Nitrous Oxide to get up to 42/44,000 ft, it wasn't a "service altitude"


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> They did, until one was hit by a Spitfire and they did drop a 250kg bomb, which is why I questioned your 3 ton bomb load for Ju488s. Aerodynamics, power generation and cooling at 48,000 ft was experimental. At these altitudes measurement in feet or meters is academic, you are in a different atmosphere at 48,000 ft over Egypt than you are over UK. BTW as you know but didn't say the JU 86 used Nitrous Oxide to get up to 42/44,000 ft, it wasn't a "service altitude"



Ju 86R2 managed to get to 50,000ft, presumably with GM-1. The August 28 Spitfire IX intercept seems to have reached over 44,000ft. The Ju 86 was at about 42,000ft when it reacted to the Spitfire and responded by jettisoning their bomb, engaged the GM-1 and began to climb. It's possible that had the Ju 86 begun evasive measures earlier they may still have gone beyond the Spitfires altitude.

Germany's U-2 - WW2s Highest Air Combat - YouTube

The BMW 801TJ-1 was flown on the Ju 388 and Ju 88S2 since 1944 and understood. The Germans had valuable high altitude test chambers wind tunnels that could simulate any temperature, air pressure and air speed to assist in engine development. This greatly helped German axial jet engine development.

You seem to fear the BMW 801 TJ wasn't systematically developed by engineers who knew how to do thermodynamic calculations or without the ability to manage a systematic development and test program.

The BMW 801TJ-1 had some issues with excessive fuel consumption not altitude performance. The BMW 801TJ-2 was already test flying and the BMW 801TQ was soon to follow, all with improved turbo superchargers etc.

The Luftwaffe's high altitude program was more focused on ultra high altitudes to escape interception than the US one which was focused in high speed cruising to high altitudes.

The Ju 488 V401 bomb load is unclear to me. Some sources say 3000kg some say 2000kg. The aircraft inherited its bomb panier from the Ju 388K which was 2000kg but its possible it was longer given the Ju 488 was a fuselage stretch of the Ju 388. The much larger Ju 488 V403 had a wider longer panier and was rated to 5000kg (11000lbs).

Incidentally at the end of the video Mark Felton states that a spitfire V shot down a Ju 86 over the Mediterranean. This never happened and has been debunked. It’s technically impossible for a Spit V to reach a Ju 86P however one Ju 86 did crash over 150 miles away the next day due to engine failure


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 19, 2021)

Since the Ju 488 was supposed to go about 45,000lbs empty equipped (or over) and well into the 70,000lb range for take-off I think most of us would agree it is not a medium bomber no matter how it was derived. Both Prototypes were wrecked by French saboteurs and never flown and the next 4 prototypes never came close to completion. All performance numbers are manufacturers estimates. 

Understanding an engine setup and being able to mass produce it are not the same thing. 
Being able to build prototypes and small batches of engines (and turbos) are not the same thing as building scores of engines every day. 





P & W R-2800 engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 19, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Since the Ju 488 was supposed to go about 45,000lbs empty equipped (or over) and well into the 70,000lb range for take-off I think most of us would agree it is not a medium bomber no matter how it was derived. Both Prototypes were wrecked by French saboteurs and never flown and the next 4 prototypes never came close to completion. All performance numbers are manufacturers estimates.
> 
> Understanding an engine setup and being able to mass produce it are not the same thing.
> Being able to build prototypes and small batches of engines (and turbos) are not the same thing as building scores of engines every day.
> ...


When I see these pics of American industrial might in the 1940s I wonder how much of this is left today. If China went full on appearing to attack Taiwan and maybe threaten Japan, or if Russia threatened the NATO Baltic states, how quickly could America covert civilian automotive and other manufacturing over to military production? In today's high tech era, where many of the essential components (semi conductors) and materials (lithium) come from China, I'm not sure. 

The US hasn't produced a Main Battle Tank since the early 1990s, and instead refurbishes the old ones. The F-35 production line reminds me of the low volume Axis lines we saw in WW2. I don't think this F-35 line could be scaled up to mass production quantities.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 19, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Since the Ju 488 was supposed to go about 45,000lbs empty equipped (or over) and well into the 70,000lb range for take-off I think most of us would agree it is not a medium bomber no matter how it was derived. Both Prototypes were wrecked by French saboteurs and never flown and the next 4 prototypes never came close to completion. All performance numbers are manufacturers estimates.
> 
> Understanding an engine setup and being able to mass produce it are not the same thing.
> Being able to build prototypes and small batches of engines (and turbos) are not the same thing as building scores of engines every day.
> ...


That would make a great model, maybe a subject of a group build?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 19, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Ju 86R2 managed to get to 50,000ft, presumably with GM-1. The August 28 Spitfire IX intercept seems to have reached over 44,000ft. The Ju 86 was at about 42,000ft when it reacted to the Spitfire and responded by jettisoning their bomb, engaged the GM-1 and began to climb. It's possible that had the Ju 86 begun evasive measures earlier they may still have gone beyond the Spitfires altitude.
> 
> Germany's U-2 - WW2s Highest Air Combat - YouTube
> 
> ...


You remember certain details of the Sept 28 intercept but not all. The Spitfire was spotted when it was at a height others had reached but continued to climb, they used NO2 to try to climb away but didn't manage to, the Spitfire made several attacks but because one cannon was jammed every time the other fired the pilot lost control and altitude. It is quite clear that if the Ju 86 could have climbed away it would have and it had ample time to do so.

If the BMW 801TJ-1 performed perfectly well at 50,000 feet having no cooling problems but suffering from huge fuel consumption, a rational person may conclude that they were using "fuel" as a coolant. If Germany had even one plane capable of flying without interception at 50,000 ft they would have used it, if only to get some idea of what was happening in southern England before and certainly after D-Day. I do not fear anything especially the endless tales of WW2 wonder weapons that didn't take flight. 
Junkers Ju 86 high-altitude reconnaissance/bomber
According to British records, the first successful interception took place north of Cairo on 24 August 1942, when a Spitfire of No. 103 Maintenance Unit (MU) brought down a Ju 86 from Aufkl. Gruppe 2(F)/123. However, German records show the Ju 86 R-1 returned to base safely, though damaged. One more reconnaissance variant was lost to the RAF on 6 September and one Ju 86 R-1 was recorded by 2(F)/123 as lost due to engine failure on 29 August. Encounters with the high-altitude RAF Spitfires led to the field installation of one rear-firing M 17 machine gun in recon Ju 86s. Still, two more aircraft became operational losses during November and December 1942. The group was down to one Ju 86 R-1 by October 1943 when it completed conversion to the Ju 88 recon variant.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 19, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> When I see these pics of American industrial might in the 1940s I wonder how much of this is left today.


 Much of that might did not exist in 1939-40. Part of America's might was the ability to build, equip and man those factories in a short period of time. 

Ford went from a bare plot of ground in Sept 1940 to delivering the first R-2800 10/05/41, In Sept of 1942 Ford delivered 640 engines and was still ramping up (and expanding the factory) In Sept of 1943 Ford delivered 1389 engines. Peak production was in July of 1944 with 186 engines per day. By July of 1944 P&W Kansas Ciry was making about 300 engines a month, Chevrolet was in the process of switching form R-1830 production to R-2800 production, P & W Hartford built 532 R-2800s but was also switching to the "C" series engine. Nash-Kelvinator was building around 800 engines a month. 

A lot of this might may be gone but the industry to rebuild does exist perhaps also to a lesser extent, but then nobody else really has the ability to ramp up their production very quickly either. 
US capacity for large trucks, construction equipment and other equipment remains large.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 19, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Much of that might did not exist in 1939-40. Part of America's might was the ability to build, equip and man those factories in a short period of time.
> 
> .


It started long before 1939-40, the R2800 first ran in 1937, when Ford broke ground for a new factory in Sept 1940 they knew what they would produce and how they would produce it. Preparation for war in USA was not far behind the UK they just had different neighbours. There were many designs and factories planned before Sept 1939, the Merlin Shadow factory was started in 1937. Things like harmonisation of 100 octane fuel didn't happen with a meeting between "bods" in 1940 they had to have been discussed for a long time before. Similarly National Aviation didn't just say "we will build a better fighter than the P-40" they quoted chapter and verse of why their design would be better, based on what they and many others had already seen of the war so far.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 19, 2021)

BTW part of Fords contribution to the R-2800 saga was not in developing any new models of the engine but in changing how the the engine was made.
P&W specified a forged cylinder barrel made of SAE 4140 steel.
Ford developed a casting technique that eliminated 50% of the machining needed for a forged barrel. Ford also claimed a better finish and a higher bursting strength.
Molten steel was poured into a centrifugal mold that ran at 750rpm. The Molds were mounted on an indexing table with eight stations. a complete cycle took 3 1/2 minutes.

This may have been the most extreme example but the US auto industry did NOT make aircraft engines or airframes in their old plants (mostly) or on old car machinery.
They did use their expertise in mass production to change the Aircraft Industries low volume production methods to high volume production that used fewer workers (or hours) per unit (engine/airplane/tank) using specialized machinery and better production line flow.

Ford later figured out how to make cast cylinder heads instead of forged. At least for the B series engines. Many companies bought their forgings from sub contractors rather than doing them in house so developments like this had ripple effects. In house casting could free up the sub contractor who supplied forgings for other work/companies.



pbehn said:


> It started long before 1939-40, the R2800 first ran in 1937, when Ford broke ground for a new factory in Sept 1940 they knew what they would produce and how they would produce it.



Not quite, While they did tour the P & W factory in Aug of 1940 and Broke ground less than 30 days later (they basically copied the P & W East Hartford Plant) P & W themselves had built fewer than 10 production R-2800s at the time the Men from Ford toured the plant. 
The first engine built with the above mentioned cast cylinders was in the first 100 engines built, if not much earlier in the run. ford was under contract for 10,517 engines at this point. 
Ford started casting cylinder heads in March of 1942, 
Ford had built just 262 A series before they built their first "B" series. They would build another 692 "A" series engines (ending at the end of Merch 1942) while they got "B" series engines into production. The Bill of materials for the "B" series engine had been given to Ford back on Oct 17 of 1940, just about one month after breaking ground on the factory. there were at least 17 differences between an "A" series and "B" series but many of them were minor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 19, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> BTW part of Fords contribution to the R-2800 saga was not in developing any new models of the engine but in changing how the the engine was made.
> P&W specified a forged cylinder barrel made of SAE 4140 steel.
> Ford developed a casting technique that eliminated 50% of the machining needed for a forged barrel. Ford also claimed a better finish and a higher bursting strength.
> Molten steel was poured into a centrifugal mold that ran at 750rpm. The Molds were mounted on an indexing table with eight stations. a complete cycle took 3 1/2 minutes.
> ...


I wasn't referring to a particular company or product but the whole of UK and USA industry. The "Spitfire" factory at Castle Bromwich was actually just a factory put up by the UK government to make aeroplanes, since it started in 1936 it was by no means certain that it would make Spitfires or anything at all if politics changed, it would make what the government wanted and in fact also made Lancasters. Technology had moved on but the USA was a similar distance in time from a declared war (Dec 1941) with that Ford R-2800 factory as the UK was with its Glasgow Merlin and Castle Bromwich "spitfire" factory with war declared in Sept 1939.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 20, 2021)

Part of the advantage the US had was a large number of underemployed people. The UK had come out of the Depression earlier than the US so when the demand for more workers really kicked in mid 39 there wasn't a pool of underemployed. 

Many of the workers in the Detroit armament factories were from the agricultural south where the depression had hit the hardest. African American men and women left the south in droves.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## msxyz (Mar 20, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Much of that might did not exist in 1939-40. Part of America's might was the ability to build, equip and man those factories in a short period of time.
> 
> Ford went from a bare plot of ground in Sept 1940 to delivering the first R-2800 10/05/41, In Sept of 1942 Ford delivered 640 engines and was still ramping up (and expanding the factory) In Sept of 1943 Ford delivered 1389 engines. Peak production was in July of 1944 with 186 engines per day. By July of 1944 P&W Kansas Ciry was making about 300 engines a month, Chevrolet was in the process of switching form R-1830 production to R-2800 production, P & W Hartford built 532 R-2800s but was also switching to the "C" series engine. Nash-Kelvinator was building around 800 engines a month.
> 
> ...


One problem the western world has today is the lack of the 'human element'. 

One of mine grand-grandmothers gave birth to 14 children from the age of 16 to the age 42. She was from a poor and rural part of the country although her family, possessing some lots of lland, was still considered wealthy for the time. Of these 14 children, 5 died in young age of illness or accidents, 2 more died as soldiers fighting in WW2. The remaining ones, however lived a long and fulfilling life well into their 80s; I don't recall having seen them falling ill or depressed till the day they died. Those were harsh times, but those times made people hard and industrious; these are the people on whom our wealth is built. All of them and their sons went on to become happy, successful and fulfilled men.

Today we put all 'our eggs' in one basket: we make 1-2 children at most; we take great care that even impaired or weak individuals survive into adulthood. We are hyper-protective parents and we shield our daughters and sons from the 'bad things' of life thinking of doing well, while -in truth- we're raising very weak minded, frail adults. Our sons are arrogant and entitled and, yet, at the first sign of difficulty, they break down like toddlers. Psychologists and antidepressants have become part of our daily life because we've forgotten that a good kick in the ass every once in a while is the best medicine.

I've spoken with many Chinese people and they laugh at our way of rising our children, and they're fundamentally right. Our civilization is past the point of prominence and it's sliding into decadence. In a way, it's history repeating itself. The great Roman Empire, for all its laws, philosophy, science and military might crumbled under the relentless assault of the 'barbarians'. 

How would our society fare under the duress of a prolonged war? Why so many soldiers nowadays return from war zones with PTSD? I've heard my fare share of WW2 horror stories from people belonging to the generation of my grandfather, but somehow these people managed to find into themselves the strength to elaborate their losses and go on with life.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 20, 2021)

msxyz said:


> Why so many soldiers nowadays return from war zones with PTSD?



It's been around a long time. It seems possible to me that we're not seeing more soldiers develop PTSD, but that we've improved our ability to detect it.



> In the summer of 1862, John Hildt lost a limb. Then he lost his mind.
> 
> The 25-year-old corporal from Michigan saw combat for the first time at the Seven Days Battle in Virginia, where he was shot in the right arm. Doctors amputated his shattered limb close to the shoulder, causing a severe hemorrhage. Hildt survived his physical wound but was transferred to the Government Hospital for the Insane in Washington D.C., suffering from “acute mania.”
> 
> ...



Did Civil War Soldiers Have PTSD? | History | Smithsonian Magazine

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Mar 20, 2021)

I suspect Roman soldiers, or others who used spears and swords, esperienced PTSD. My thoughts for this comes from the few WW2 vets I knew who had been in close or hand or hand to hand combat. Also from watching videos of vets. One AVG pilot in a video spoke of his first air combat intercepting Japanese bombers. He said he could clearly see the gunner stand up behind his gun and was close enough to see the fear in his face, see him hit and slide down inside. His comment was that he could see that gunner in his dreams. A supervisor I had, said it was different when you could see the face of the one you killed. He was a heavy drinker. Audie Murphy had PTSD and often could not sleep inside at night.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 20, 2021)

You didn't nessecarily need to have direct contact with the enemy to suffer PTSD. Both my Mom's older brothers suffered from it to a certain degree from their combat in the Pacific (WWII) - one was a Submariner and was savagely depth-charged in one boat and on one occasion, had his boat sunk (he was a torpedoman and escaped via the foreward tube). My other Uncle served aboard Destroyers and saw considerable action, including the Solomon's where his Destroyer was sunk during a night battle.
My Grandfather (US Army cavalry WWI) lost most of his foot, my Stepdad (USMC, Korea - Chosin survivor) was severely frostbitten, one friend was US 10th Mountain Div. WWII and suffered from the Italian campaign (especially the 88 barrages), another was a Marine in the PTO, having 5 AMTRAKs shot out from under him during the course island campaigns plus brutal hand-to-hand action where even trenching tools and helmets became weapons.
Another was a crewman aboard a Silverplate B-29 that Atom-bombed Japan, which constantly haunted him.

The list goes on, but these people were from a different time, where life was not easy and you had to be tough to get by and so they dealt with it and moved on. Sort of like when I was a kid and got hurt during a game and Coach would tell "come on, get up and walk it off!"

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 20, 2021)

PTSD has always been around. We just hear about it more today.

There are letters written by soldiers from as far back as the B.C. era describing behavior that matches what we call PTSD today.

Here in the US we have letters in the national archives, from the post-Civil War era, that are heart wrenching to read - many of them written by the family of the soldier, describing behavior that fits PTSD.

I am not familiar with the numbers from WWI, but up until the mid-1990s the majority of homeless men in the US were veterans of WWII or the Korean War. The only reason that changed is that they started dying off in large numbers. Reporting on the number of suicides by WWII, Korean War, and Vietnam veterans was actually discouraged/suppressed from post-WWII through the 1970s.

One of my uncles was in Europe in WWII. He once told me that after he came home he had constant nightmares and flashbacks, and often contemplated suicide. He said only his meeting and marrying my aunt kept him going. He had regular nightmares and would often wake up screaming, for about 10 year after the war.

A friend of mine who served in Korea (2nd Infantry) told me he tried to drink himself to death for about 10 years after he got home. He managed to stop drinking and thought he had dealt with the psychological problem, until his late-60s when he started having nightmares and flashbacks again.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 20, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> You didn't nessecarily need to have direct contact with the enemy to suffer PTSD. Both my Mom's older brothers suffered from it to a certain degree from their combat in the Pacific (WWII) - one was a Submariner and was savagely depth-charged in one boat and on one occasion, had his boat sunk (he was a torpedoman and escaped via the foreward tube). My other Uncle served aboard Destroyers and saw considerable action, including the Solomon's where his Destroyer was sunk during a night battle.
> My Grandfather (US Army cavalry WWI) lost most of his foot, my Stepdad (USMC, Korea - Chosin survivor) was severely frostbitten, one friend was US 10th Mountain Div. WWII and suffered from the Italian campaign (especially the 88 barrages), another was a Marine in the PTO, having 5 AMTRAKs shot out from under him during the course island campaigns plus brutal hand-to-hand action where even trenching tools and helmets became weapons.
> Another was a crewman aboard a Silverplate B-29 that Atom-bombed Japan, which constantly haunted him.
> 
> The list goes on, but these people were from a different time, where life was not easy and you had to be tough to get by and so they dealt with it and moved on. Sort of like when I was a kid and got hurt during a game and Coach would tell "come on, get up and walk it off!"



I've had two step-fathers. Both were Vietnam vets, one a Marine recon radioman, the other a PBR gunner. Both saw intense combat at times. Both had PTSD. Bob, the Marine, would wake up at night screaming from what I imagine were horrific dream-memories. Kevin would startle at any sharp, loud noise; he'd been in enough ambushes. And I know other vets who suffer it as well.

I experienced the 1978-79 revolution in Iran that overthrew the Shah (I was 12 at the time) and saw several bloody scenes of rioters being attacked by government troops. I was also a firefighter in the USAF (89-93) and saw some gruesome stuff there too. Though I don't seem to have PTSD, I can't exclude the possibility. I did have a major drinking problem through much of my adulthood. Sobriety has been good to me and I seem to be at peace with my own non-combat experiences now.

I'm no mental-health professional, but I suspect PTSD is more common than thought in the military (as well as some other professions). The military ethos of not displaying "weakness" would tend to tamp down on the diagnosis numbers, but it seems to me that PTSD may be the mind's way of dealing with extreme events. At any rate, I sure don't regard it as a sign of weakness. I look at it as a coping mechanism in some circumstances, and the result of mental scarring in others. And of course it could actually be both coping and scarring.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Mar 20, 2021)

As GG pointed out, it was not necessary to be in physical combat. One young guy I worked with in the 70s was on a cruiser off Vietnam. His job was in the turret to squeeze the grips to fire the big naval rifles. He made sure I knew they were "naval rifles". What bothered him was that he could sit in safety and kill the enemy 20 miles away. He told me that fire control was so accurate they normally used three rounds or less to eliminate the threat to Marines inland. Once Marines called rounds on their position as they were about to be overrun. Firecontrol Officer refused but the reply was it was NVA or USN. John said they fired on the coordinates and asked for correction for next round and were told "Thanks You got them". I think the precision with which they killed is what got to him while in safety. John was already married twice, and as a heavy drinker, drove his car into a canal and nearly drowned.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## msxyz (Mar 21, 2021)

PTSD can be explained with two basic instincts humans posses: fear and guild. Fear is what keep all animals alive in the face of unknown situations, guilt is proper of social animals because it tempers aggression towards members of the same group/pack (that's why a dog can be scolded, a cat doesn't 'understand'). War pushes fear and guilt to the extreme, so it's not surprising that it scars the psyche. However context is equally important in how your brain react to these 'scars'. Cultural values, hardship, the context in which one grows up all can have a 'soothing' effect on these extreme emotions..

I can only imagine the terror of a foot soldier in a 18th century battlefield; being forced to march into a square while seeing cannonballs slowly tumbling towards his unit and horribly maiming the bodies of men like a meat grinder. Officers on ships were expected to hold their position even when a shell landed close to them and waiting for the paper fuze to ignite the powder. It would be hard to imagine these men returned home without any nightmarish memory constantly pounding in the back of their head. But they lived in a time when loss o life was all too common. Many died young to illness. Mothers died giving birth. Work conditions were harsher than we can even imagine today. So, yes, PTSD might have been a thing even then, but typically people were better prepared to live with it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 21, 2021)

This has to be one of the best thread-drifts I've read here. Lots of stuff to chew on.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 21, 2021)

How do we know people from earlier centuries coped better with PTSD. Has anyone met a survivor of a pre 1900 war or disaster. Don't project your modern prejudices or preconceptions onto people who are long dead and might have suffered in ways we cannot comprehend.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that as long as Homo sapiens have existed they have felt and suffered much as we 21st century people do. You only have to look at the incredibly complex funerary rites of the Neolithic and Bronze age periods to see how death was a very important and meaningful thing.

Earlier than 10,000 years it's harder to find evidence of people grieving and caring but it's there if only in the way skeletal remains have been found of people who were elderly and disabled who couldn't have survived long without being fed, housed and clothed by others. 

Many of the Great Apes show the same reactions to death, stress, conflict and infirmity as we do. Not to mention animals not related to us like Elephants and Dolphins.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 21, 2021)

... the Chinese word for what ails us in the West .... baizuo


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 21, 2021)

I don't remember if I mentioned it, but I selected the A-26 for my choice of best. High speed, good payload, fairly maneuverable, and the interchangeable nose allowed for different mission capabilities to be adopted in the field.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 21, 2021)

ShVAK said:


> The strategic bombers and fighters get more attention but overall considering all the important roles they were involved in I think medium bombers were my favorite aircraft class of WWII.


Why were no Japanese airforce bombers listed?


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 21, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Why were no Japanese airforce bombers listed?


Because they weren't very good?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 22, 2021)

Mitsubishi G4M "Betty" is on the list.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 22, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Why were no Japanese airforce bombers listed?


Because no one likes the IJA's KI-48 - they're all about the IJN's G4M.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 22, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Because no one likes the IJA's KI-48 - they're all about the IJN's G4M.


To be fair, isn’t the Kawasaki Ki-48 with its 800 kg bomb load and three mgs considered a light bomber? To me the ubiquitous IJAF medium bomber was the Mitsubishi Ki-21, even though it was designated as a heavy bomber. The Nakajima Ki-49 also deserves mention.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 22, 2021)

To be fair the Japanese bombers, in general, sacrificed bombload and protection for range. 
This worked, to some extent, in China where the opposition wasn't very good but still good enough that the Japanese realized they needed to escort bombers with long range fighters. 

The Japanese seemed to be a step behind. many of their bombers did get protection, but in mid 1942 or after. Just ahead of the Allies introducing new fighters but origin of the better protection was from China. 

There may be a language problem or a problem in terminology. Open to correction here but Japanese _may _have categorized their bombers as either light or heavy without having an official "medium class". 
Japanese gun armament also wasn't very good. Again they were a step behind. 3-6 rifle caliber machine guns (or hand full of RCMGs and one bigger gun) might have been OK (it really wasn't, but the other nations learned) in 1940, in 1942 it was pathetic. 

Later Japanese aircraft were still behind the curve.
The P1Y Ginga of 1944 for example was very long ranged, but it wasn't much faster than an A-20 of 1942/42 and only had a single 13mm machine gun defending the rear of the bomber.
So it was fast, but not fast enough. 
It had poor defensive armament (worse than slower TBD)
The way the Japanese loaded it, a 1000kg load, wasn't very good by 1943.44 standards. Perhaps they could have traded fuel for bombs but the Japanese never seemed to size the bomb bays or add underwing racks to do that, correction welcome.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 22, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Mitsubishi G4M "Betty" is on the list.


Okay. But I wasn’t asking about Japanese navy bombers.


Admiral Beez said:


> Why were no Japanese airforce bombers listed?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## msxyz (Mar 22, 2021)

Mitsubishi Ki-67 was rather good: fast, protected, agile (a night fighter version was planned). The P1Y is also worth of mentioning. Both arrived too late and in too small numbers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 22, 2021)

Hey Admiral Beez,

re "Okay. But I wasn’t asking about Japanese navy bombers."

Sorry, I am used to the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service (IJAAS) being referred to as the Japanese Army Air Force, and the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service (IJNAS) as the Japanese Navy or Naval Air Force. Your use of just "air force" made me think in general terms of both services.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 22, 2021)

msxyz said:


> Mitsubishi Ki-67 was rather good: fast, protected, agile (a night fighter version was planned). The P1Y is also worth of mentioning. Both arrived too late and in too small numbers.


P1Y mentioned above.
Ki-67?

From Wiki.
*Ki-67-Ib*

*Crew:* 6–8
*Wing area:* 65.85 m2 (708.8 sq ft)
*Empty weight:* 8,649 kg (19,068 lb)
*Gross weight:* 13,765 kg (30,347 lb)
*Powerplant:* 2 × Mitsubishi Ha104 ("Army Type 4 1,900hp Air Cooled Radial") 18-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, 1,400 kW (1,900 hp) each for take-off
1,350 kW (1,810 hp) at 2,200 m (7,200 ft)1,201 kW (1,610 hp) at 8,300 m (27,200 ft)

*Performance*

*Maximum speed:* 537 km/h (334 mph, 290 kn) at 6,090 m (19,980 ft)
*Cruise speed:* 400 km/h (250 mph, 220 kn) at 8,000 m (26,000 ft)
*Range:* 2,800 km (1,700 mi, 1,500 nmi)
*Ferry range:* 3,800 km (2,400 mi, 2,100 nmi)
*Service ceiling:* 9,470 m (31,070 ft)
*Time to altitude:* 6,000 m (20,000 ft) in 14 minutes 30 seconds
*Armament*

*Guns:*
1 × 20 mm (0.79 in) Ho-5 cannon in dorsal turret
5 × 12.7 mm (.50in) Ho-103 (Type 1) machine guns, one in nose, 1 in the tail, and 1 in each beam position (late models); Early models carried magazine-fed 7.7 mm (.303in) Type 89 machine guns in the beam positions.

*Bombs:* 800 kg (1,764 lb) of bombs in internal bay or one torpedo, Kamikaze versions carried 2,900 kg (6,400 lb) of bombs

Very good range, but for 1944 the speed isn't good enough to give a lot of protection against interception. They were not facing Wildcats and P-40s anymore. F4Us, F6Fs, P-38s and P-47s might have a time with a long chase if spotted soon enough but a nearly 60mph speed advantage can eat up a 5 mile head start fairly quickly. Bomb load for 1944 isn't great by any means. Gun armament is light by US standards but not bad compared to some other nations. 
B-25C/Ds with field mods had one .50 in the nose (and one or two fixed) two .50s in a power turret on top, one .50 in the tail and one .50 out each side (belly turret removed) and that was in late 1942/early 1943. 
I am not real impressed that the Japanese roughly equaled that 1 1/2 years later with about 2/3rds the bombload.


----------



## WARSPITER (Mar 23, 2021)

I suppose you have to look at how the Japanese twins stack up in 1944 against the 1944 versions of the two highest vote pullers in the poll.

Not really there especially considering the difference in time of first use.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Mar 25, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> PTSD has always been around. We just hear about it more today.



Just one more on the digression topic...

USMC 8-year NON-combat vet here ('81-'89) - I have known a number of people with what is now called PTSD.


One was my maternal grandfather - he saw combat in WW1 with the US AEF in France - he was in hospital with lung injuries from gas on Armistice Day.

He also had bad experiences before the war running a trapline in Minnesota - those PETA imbeciles that claim wolves don't attack humans need to go live in the North Woods unarmed for a couple of years. 

My grandmother regularly slept in a different bedroom, as he would often suddenly begin hand-to-hand combat with either Germans or wolves in his sleep.


As for the question of "Why so many now", part of it lies in the simple pace of warfare now compared to previously... my Father's oldest brother saw combat in France & Germany in '44-'45 - but didn't make it back stateside until 1946.

That time, still in the military, working beside your combat buddies on peaceful things, gave a lot of time for buddies to help each other learn how to cope with their trauma, and to re-acclimate to peacetime existence. Additionally, they often exchanged their contact info, and while many did not stay in touch after returning to the US, quite a number did maintain contact with at least one of their unit - and talked about things.

In Vietnam, you could be in a firefight one moment, and be stateside in civvies with your DD-214 72 hours later! No decompression, no re-acclimatization, no "talking things out with your buddies", and no way to get back in touch as you had no time to do so when your NCO popped his head into your hooch and said "Hey ____, grab your shit - your truck to the Freedom Bird leaves in half an hour"!

It is a bit better now - but the combat>civvies time is still in weeks, not months.


Another difference is relative ages... in Vietnam the official "average age" of US servicemen was 19 - a crapload of 18-19 year olds with a small scattering of mid-20s or older people - mostly too senior to talk to candidly.

In WW1, WW2, and Korea you had a significant number of either veterans of the previous war or older men (holding lower ranks) who had been drafted or who had enlisted willingly (the draft did call up more than just fresh high school graduates back then), and those men tended to be more stable, mature, and with life experiences that helped them to cope with stress (some were married, some even with children) - and to help the "kids" in their unit learn how to do the same.

Even with that, as many have related earlier in this discussion, there were a lot who had long-term problems that we would now diagnose and treat, but which back then was pushed into the shadows of their minds.

Our current-day all-volunteer force has a good percentage of older experienced personnel... but still has a lot of institutional problems with dealing with those still on active duty who are having problems coping - nearly all of the effective treatment comes after they get their discharges.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
5 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 12, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Let's not forget Lavochkin, who was saved from the "Stalin Flu" by the nose of a Su-2.
> Then there was Kalinin, who did get the "Stalin Flu"...



Solzhenitsyn goes into depth on _sharashkas_ in a couple of his books.


----------



## MiTasol (Jan 7, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> I agree, given the right torpedoes the Mitchell will be deadly, especially with a dozen .50 in the nose suppressing the target’s AA.
> 
> View attachment 610626
> 
> ...



14
The top turret has two and can fire forward as well

They would have needed folding bomb doors like the Beaufort tho.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Jan 7, 2022)

GreenKnight121 said:


> Just one more on the digression topic...
> 
> USMC 8-year NON-combat vet here ('81-'89) - I have known a number of people with what is now called PTSD.
> 
> ...



It was also considered cowardice so no one was willing to admit to it.

In WW2 in the RAF it was called *lack of moral fibre* and you were sent straight to the nearest funny farm and got nothing but contempt for being a coward so that really sent you nuts.

I would strongly recommend you read an excellent book with a very crappy title (_The Last Torpedo Flyers: The True Story of Arthur Aldridge, Hero of the Skies_) BookFinder.com: New & Used Books, Rare Books, Textbooks, Out of Print because it covers the issue and why it came about on multiple occasions - some of the things those poor buggers experienced will blow your mind.

I was given the book many years ago when it was first published and, because of the title, only read it for the first time early last year. It is a warts and all history of one Beaufort torpedo bombing crews experiences in ww2 including how the Beauforts were bombed from above by other RAF aircraft while trying to torpedo their targets during the German channel dash, how one pilot had to land gear up on a jammed on live torpedo as he had injured on board who could not parachute, how one crew managed to get their aircraft home and safe after the pilot went totally bonkers on the wrong side of the channel, how the turret gunners modified their turrets etc.

Although the pilot is named in the title all the remaining crew were involved in writing this book.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jan 7, 2022)

GreenKnight121 said:


> Just one more on the digression topic...
> 
> USMC 8-year NON-combat vet here ('81-'89) - I have known a number of people with what is now called PTSD.
> 
> ...


Excellent information, thank you.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 7, 2022)

Doh. Any insight on why michaelmaltby was banned?


----------



## ClayO (Jan 7, 2022)

MiTasol said:


> It was also considered cowardice so no one was willing to admit to it.
> 
> In WW2 in the RAF it was called *lack of moral fibre* and you were sent straight to the nearest funny farm and got nothing but contempt for being a coward so that really sent you nuts.
> 
> ...



You may have seen the documentary "Let There Be Light" which shows interviews with sufferers of PTSD who are being treated after the war. It's remarkable for its straight portrayal of the men, without casting aspersions on their "moral fiber." (Of course this wouldn't be permitted today due to HIPAA rules - the original version even included the mens' names.) It's hard to watch the whole thing, especially if your family was personally touched, but it does offer a measure of hope if you stick with it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 7, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Doh. Any insight on why michaelmaltby was banned?


In another thread he continued to post political comments and mock a moderator after being warned several times to stop.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 7, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In another thread he continued to post political comments and mock a moderator after being warned several times to stop.


Politics - triple damned thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 7, 2022)

ShVAK said:


> Choose yours!


Boulton Paul Overstrand and the Vickers Valentia. The latter fought on to 1944. Not bad for a biplane.


----------



## Acheron (Jan 7, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In another thread he continued to post political comments and mock a moderator after being warned several times to stop.











Bullying a Dragon - TV Tropes


See that guy over there? The one that can make Your Head A-Splode with his Psychic Powers? What a weirdo. Let's throw rocks at him! This is the fate-tempting and suicidal tendency of characters to bully, persecute or otherwise provoke people or …




tvtropes.org





Back on topic, I understand the B-25 was considerably easier and forgiving to fly, right? But wasn't the B-26 considerably faster? Heard claims that the B-26 had a decently low loss-ratio, and I wonder if extra speed is worthwhile when there is AAA shooting at you.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 7, 2022)

Acheron said:


> Back on topic, I understand the B-25 was considerably easier and forgiving to fly, right? But wasn't the B-26 considerably faster? Heard claims that the B-26 had a decently low loss-ratio, and I wonder if extra speed is worthwhile when there is AAA shooting at you.



The early B-26s were pretty fast on low altitudes. Later models were slower due to the greater drag (bigger wing, wing incidence was increased, engine air intakes grew bigger, many guns were added...), not able to do 300 mph. Despite some engine power increase. B-25 was just a tad slower.
The low sortie/loss ratio for the B-26s was achieved once the Allies established air superiority over NW Europe, with B-26s not venturing too deep - talk to the Ardenes max?

AA gunners never liked a fast target. However, the B-26 was not fast to begin with, so the gunners stood a fair chance to hit it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 7, 2022)

Acheron said:


> Back on topic, I understand the B-25 was considerably easier and forgiving to fly, right? But wasn't the B-26 considerably faster? Heard claims that the B-26 had a decently low loss-ratio, and I wonder if extra speed is worthwhile when there is AAA shooting at you.


Depends on the circumstances. The early "no visible means of support" Marauders (Midway vintage) were gofast muthas and slippery bastards with high accident rates. The later tamed down safer to fly versions were fast, but not as overwhelmingly fast relative to the Mitchell.
In a conventional bombing raid and interceptor evasion scenario, speed is valuable, as witness the Marauder's survival rate over Fortress Europe. When it comes to a gun nose equipped torpedo or skip-bomb attack on a ship the advantage of speed isn't quite so clear-cut. Too much speed can defeat a torpedo or skip-bomb drop and firing platform stability under the recoil of all that firepower is more critical than the exposure time to AA fire from the target. Even a "tame" Marauder is more squirrelly than a Mitchell.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 7, 2022)

The very early B-25s and B-26s were good for a bit below 320 and bit 320 above respectively But the fast B-25s didn't even have a top turret so they disappeared pretty quickly. 

Part of the B-26 was part illusion. to get the early ones up to close to 320mph you had a single tail gun (not that many of those were made)AND the gross weight was so low they weren't carrying much for bombs and they certainly weren't carrying much for fuel. Some of the performance figures were for 26,734lbs but normal gross weight was 28,706lbs. The "normal" gross weight included only 465 gal of fuel and only 2000lbs of bombs. The plane, even an early one, would hold over 900 gallons of fuel and/or 4000lb to 5200lbs of bombs. 
Something else to watch out for was that the early B-26 only held 5 crew members, include a pilot and co-pilot but they had 4 gun stations. Basically you had the the guy manning the turret also trying to use the *.30 *cal ventral tunnel gun. That or you had the pilot and co-pilot in the cockpit, the navigator/bomb aimer in the nose (with a *.30 *cal gun) and the radio operator behind the cockpit and separated from the guns behind the bomb bay by the bomb bay leaving one man to man the turret, man the tail gun (or two tail guns) and the .30 cal tunnel gun. 
eventually the crew of the B-26 would reach 7 men (on occasion 8?) 

As Tomo has said, some of the drag came from bigger oil coolers, much larger air intakes for the carbs (with sand/dirt filters) removal of prop spinners long before the wing got bigger and/or tilted. 

There weren't that many of the "fast" B-26s made. 
For the B-25s, one they had a top turret, getting over 300mph was going to be pretty rare (downhill, tailwind).

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 7, 2022)

The early B-26s served in the Pacific with the 22nd BG in Australia/ New Guinea and with the 28th Composite Group in Alaska. The 22nd flew with seven man crews. The 28th began with seven man crews, but later dispensed with the gunners as there was virtually no aerial opposion in the Aleutians.
The Japanese found the early B-26s very difficult to intercept, requesting special interceptors to guard Rabaul,as the Zeroes had difficulty overtaking the Marauders in a tail chase, and found the rearward facing armament to be a challenge. It should be noted that the 3rd BG, equipped with early B-25Cs did not have the range to attack Rabaul, and suffered much greater losses at the hands of the Japanese fighters than did the 22nd's B-26s. Ten B-25s were shot down by the Tainan Kokutai between April and November 1942, compared to five B-26s.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 8, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> The early B-26s served in the Pacific with the 22nd BG in Australia/ New Guinea and with the 28th Composite Group in Alaska. The 22nd flew with seven man crews. The 28th began with seven man crews, but later dispensed with the gunners as there was virtually no aerial opposion in the Aleutians.
> The Japanese found the early B-26s very difficult to intercept, requesting special interceptors to guard Rabaul,as the Zeroes had difficulty overtaking the Marauders in a tail chase, and found the rearward facing armament to be a challenge. It should be noted that the 3rd BG, equipped with early B-25Cs did not have the range to attack Rabaul, and suffered much greater losses at the hands of the Japanese fighters than did the 22nd's B-26s. Ten B-25s were shot down by the Tainan Kokutai between April and November 1942, compared to five B-26s.


Imagine the Battle of Midway if the four torpedo-armed B-26 sent out on on 4 June 1942 had just a little more luck. For starters, have two of them score torpedo hits, and that final one succeed in its suicidal collision with Akagi’s bridge, killing Nagumo and his staff. Of course Nagumo’s decisions were an important part of the American victory, so perhaps it’s for the best. Still, you have to like the B-26, fast, tough and well armed, the polar opposite of the IJN’s fast yet in incendiary eggshell twin engine torpedo bombers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Jan 8, 2022)

About 40 years ago, I knew a guy who was a gunner in B-25s in the SWPA during the war. He told me that the B-25 was awfully hard for a Zero to catch after they'd unloaded their bombs on Rabaul and headed "downhill". He'd made several trips over Rabaul in the B-25s, and loved them unconditionally. Bob was a heckuva character, but I had no reason not to believe him. He did mention that until they'd unloaded their ordnance, it was pretty dicey, but once those bombs were gone, they didn't have much trouble getting away from the Japanese aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 8, 2022)

glennasher said:


> About 40 years ago, I knew a guy who was a gunner in B-25s in the SWPA during the war. He told me that the B-25 was awfully hard for a Zero to catch after they'd unloaded their bombs on Rabaul and headed "downhill". He'd made several trips over Rabaul in the B-25s, and loved them unconditionally. Bob was a heckuva character, but I had no reason not to believe him. He did mention that until they'd unloaded their ordnance, it was pretty dicey, but once those bombs were gone, they didn't have much trouble getting away from the Japanese aircraft.


It’s noteworthy just how slow the late war A6M5 was at 350 mph top speed. By this time the USN and RN were flying 390 to >400 mph Hellcats and Corsairs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2022)

Wen I was in A&P school I had an instructor who flew B-25s as well. I believe he was in the Pacific, didn't talk too much about his war time experiences but I do remember him saying that once the B-25 let loose it's bomb load, it was pretty fast.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 8, 2022)

The thing with some of the US bombers was that their engines were designed for low attitude flight. 
The Early B-26 I referenced above gave it's best speed at 14,500ft and it was in high gear. Engine was good for about 1450hp. 
In low gear the engine was good for 1850hp according to P&W but that was only good for around 2500-3000ft and a bit less in tropical conditions. 
The bombers could run pretty quick at low altitude compared to some of the Japanese fighters. The Japanese fighters may have had more speed higher up.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 8, 2022)

glennasher said:


> About 40 years ago, I knew a guy who was a gunner in B-25s in the SWPA during the war. He told me that the B-25 was awfully hard for a Zero to catch after they'd unloaded their bombs on Rabaul and headed "downhill". He'd made several trips over Rabaul in the B-25s, and loved them unconditionally. Bob was a heckuva character, but I had no reason not to believe him. He did mention that until they'd unloaded their ordnance, it was pretty dicey, but once those bombs were gone, they didn't have much trouble getting away from the Japanese aircraft.


That was a pretty typical egress technique. Bomb from the land side then dive to sea level on the way out. Had the added advantage that you could use the background to mask your approach. B-26s in particular were known for their acceleration in a dive. "They had the glide characteristics of a piano."
Early B-25s lacked adequate rear defense until they were field modified with a .30 or .50 out the tail. The Bendix bottom turret was considered almost worthless. These were mostly removed and replaced by a jettisonible fuel tank to increase range.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 8, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Imagine the Battle of Midway if the four torpedo-armed B-26 sent out on on 4 June 1942 had just a little more luck. For starters, have two of them score torpedo hits, and that final one succeed in its suicidal collision with Akagi’s bridge, killing Nagumo and his staff. Of course Nagumo’s decisions were an important part of the American victory, so perhaps it’s for the best. Still, you have to like the B-26, fast, tough and well armed, the polar opposite of the IJN’s fast yet in incendiary eggshell twin engine torpedo bombers.



For all the slagging it got for its high landing-speed and the "Baltimore Whore" stuff, iirc the -26 ended the war with the lowest loss-rate of mass-produced American bombers. It was certainly an effective weapon once it found its roles right. One of the best of the war in medium-altitude medium-bombing roles.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jan 8, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Imagine the Battle of Midway if the four torpedo-armed B-26 sent out on on 4 June 1942 had just a little more luck. For starters, have two of them score torpedo hits, and that final one succeed in its suicidal collision with Akagi’s bridge, killing Nagumo and his staff.



The near-collision story is probably an exaggeration. _Shattered Sword_ authors Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully mention this at 1:35:36 in this YouTube video discussing the battle.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 8, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> The near-collision story is probably an exaggeration. _Shattered Sword_ authors Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully mention this at 1:35:36 in this YouTube video discussing the battle.


1Lt. Muir, pilot of the B-26 "Suzy-Q" verified that one of the two B-26s behind him, narrowly missed the superstructure as he was flying down the Akagi's deck.


----------



## 33k in the air (Jan 8, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> 1Lt. Muir, pilot of the B-26 "Suzy-Q" verified that one of the two B-26s behind him, narrowly missed the superstructure as he was flying down the Akagi's deck.



How does the pilot in the front of a B-26 see what's going on behind him? Does the plane missing the superstructure do so in front of him, in which wouldn't it have nearly collided with his own aircraft? Or is the near collision taking place at a different carrier than Akagi?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> How does the pilot in the front of a B-26 see what's going on behind him? Does the plane missing the superstructure do so in front of him, in which wouldn't it have nearly collided with his own aircraft? Or is the near collision taking place at a different carrier than Akagi?


I'm sure if he (1Lt. Muir) didn't see it, one of his crew members did, and I would also guess that this was mentioned in the de-brief. I remember seeing this mentioned during a documentary and I think one or more of the participants were interviewed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 8, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> How does the pilot in the front of a B-26 see what's going on behind him? Does the plane missing the superstructure do so in front of him, in which wouldn't it have nearly collided with his own aircraft? Or is the near collision taking place at a different carrier than Akagi?


We can’t know for certain, but I’ll trust an eye witness over Shattered Sword’s authors.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 8, 2022)

Very detailed interviews of the B-26 survivors as well as other participants (both Japanese and American) in the book by Walter Lord, "Midway - The Incredible Victory".

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Jan 8, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> How does the pilot in the front of a B-26 see what's going on behind him? Does the plane missing the superstructure do so in front of him, in which wouldn't it have nearly collided with his own aircraft? Or is the near collision taking place at a different carrier than Akagi?



The same way you know if you driving a truck or are towing a caravan or trailer with your car - experience and spatial awareness

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 8, 2022)

The B-26 would always be hampered by it's poor take off characteristics. In the Pacific it was a key reason for it's withdrawal from combat operations. After the deployment of the 22nd BG to Australia, the 77th BS to Alaska and the re-equipping of the 73rd BS already there, the last Marauder equipped units were the early B-26B equipped 69th and 70th BS, sent to New Caledonia and Fiji in mid 1942. Other B-26 equipped units slated for deployment to the Pacific, (the rest of the 38th BG and the rest of the 42nd BG) were re-equipped with B-25s prior to deployment. Their B-26s were either used as replacements for the 22nd and 28th groups, or were handed over to the 21st and 17th BGs which were the training units tasked with producing the B-26 units bound for the ETO and MTO. 
The B-26 equipped bomb groups sent to North Africa with the short wing B-26B fared poorly compared to similar units equipped with B-25s.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Jan 9, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> We can’t know for certain, but I’ll trust an eye witness over Shattered Sword’s authors.


Understandable, but eye witnesses only sees what they see and they see, yet may extrapolate and draw conclusions that seem plausible to them, yet are not necessarily true.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 9, 2022)

Acheron said:


> Understandable, but eye witnesses only sees what they see and they see, yet may extrapolate and draw conclusions that seem plausible to them, yet are not necessarily true.


I've been around circle track racing over 30 years, raced over 20 years myself.
Early in my experience one of my sponsors was a man who videoed the races and sold them, I got the videos free.
On viewing them I noticed that what actually happened was sometimes different from what I had thought had happened.
Sometimes, under stress, the mind can come up with solutions that have little relation to what really took place.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
5 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 9, 2022)

From the United States Navy's Naval Heritage and History Command website:

"The third heavily damaged B-26, which may or may not have dropped its torpedo, flew directly at _Akagi_'s bridge and missed hitting Nagumo and his entire staff by a matter of feet before crashing in the water on the opposite side. Whether the B-26 was out of control, or whether the pilot was trying to deliberately hit the bridge with his crippled aircraft remains unknown, but to Nagumo it certainly looked like the latter."





__





H-006-3 The Sacrifice


H-Gram 006, Attachment 3 Samuel J. Cox, Director NHHC May 2017 **Revised and updated 28 October 2019**




www.history.navy.mil

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 9, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> From the United States Navy's Naval Heritage and History Command website:
> 
> "The third heavily damaged B-26, which may or may not have dropped its torpedo, flew directly at _Akagi_'s bridge and missed hitting Nagumo and his entire staff by a matter of feet before crashing in the water on the opposite side. Whether the B-26 was out of control, or whether the pilot was trying to deliberately hit the bridge with his crippled aircraft remains unknown, but to Nagumo it certainly looked like the latter."
> 
> ...


Great link!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 10, 2022)

NHHC is a great resource all the way 'round.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Jan 10, 2022)

tyrodtom said:


> I've been around circle track racing over 30 years, raced over 20 years myself.
> Early in my experience one of my sponsors was a man who videoed the races and sold them, I got the videos free.
> On viewing them I noticed that what actually happened was sometimes different from what I had thought had happened.
> Sometimes, under stress, the mind can come up with solutions that have little relation to what really took place.


Check out this and please please please don't spoil it for others

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 10, 2022)

15?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 10, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> 15?


Damn. I'm gonna' have to watch it again.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 10, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Damn. I'm gonna' have to watch it again.



I probably missed a couple all the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 10, 2022)

I'll have to concentrate harder.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RagTag (Jan 10, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> The early B-26s were pretty fast on low altitudes. Later models were slower due to the greater drag (bigger wing, wing incidence was increased, engine air intakes grew bigger, many guns were added...), not able to do 300 mph. Despite some engine power increase. B-25 was just a tad slower.
> The low sortie/loss ratio for the B-26s was achieved once the Allies established air superiority over NW Europe, with B-26s not venturing too deep - talk to the Ardenes max?
> 
> AA gunners never liked a fast target. However, the B-26 was not fast to begin with, so the gunners stood a fair chance to hit it.


That got me looking at my Dad’s logbook as a B-26 Pathfinder to see how deep they went. From fall ‘44 missions just past the Ardennes to hit staging areas and troop concentrations. A fair number up and down the Saar and east side of the Rhine. But toward the end they got deeper with lighter load outs, 5 hour missions out as far as near Nuremberg and concluding into Czechoslovakia in May 45.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

