# Best Light Bomber of WWII



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

I want to know your thoughts on the Best light bomber...I am going to say A-20 fantastic plane all around!


----------



## Waynos (Aug 31, 2008)

I would say DH Mosquito, without a shadow of a doubt. fastest piston bomber of the war and it was introduced at (or near) the start of it. Spitfire performance with a Wellington bombload. Remarkable plane.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Aug 31, 2008)

I completely agree Waynos. The Mosquito was not only an amazing aircraft but also one of the most adaptable aircraft of the war. Any bomber who's defense was pure speed has my vote


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 31, 2008)

If your going to pick the Mosquito, then I'll pick the Corsair. It could carry the same payload as the Mosquito and is 40-60 mph faster and has a higher ceiling (depending on variant to variant comparision).

And once the bombs are dropped, I'll take the Corsair in a dogfight anyday.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 1, 2008)

But could the Corsair go anywhere near as far as the Mossie with a 4,000 lb load? (plus the Corsair certainly wouldn't be carrying a cookie)


----------



## Ramirezzz (Sep 1, 2008)

Corsair? should we consider the fighter - bombers as the light bombers?


----------



## Negative Creep (Sep 1, 2008)

Wasn't the mosquito also a fighter bomber though?


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 1, 2008)

Well, on the Medium bomber thread they said it was a medium bomber and now here its a light bomber...I realize it is multi role but it can be a mediuma and light bomber


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 1, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> But could the Corsair go anywhere near as far as the Mossie with a 4,000 lb load? (plus the Corsair certainly wouldn't be carrying a cookie)


the Mossie forte was lo level and at 250 knots at lo level a real nav is a handy thing as you fly 4 miles a minute


----------



## Waynos (Sep 1, 2008)

It wasn't a medium bomber, it was a light bomber that carried the load of a medium bomber. Have you ever compared the size of a Mosquito with a Wellington for example?


----------



## Flyboy2 (Sep 1, 2008)

Plus the mosquito has only 2 crew members... I would classify that as a light bomber


----------



## Thorlifter (Sep 1, 2008)

So what is going to be the separation? A plane with a crew of two or more? More than one engine?


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 1, 2008)

What the Russian Pe-2 in comparison?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 1, 2008)

Well the A-20 was the first bomber the Eighth Air Force had, and it did it's job well. 

But the Mossie probably did more for the war effort, and was better able to take care of itself from fighters.


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 1, 2008)

That is a very good point......


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 2, 2008)

What is a light bomber anyway?

There's heavy bombers... more or less obvious what a heavy bomber is. The lighter you get from then the more blurry the picture. What is your criteria? Bombload? Defensive armament? Structural strength? A mix?

I always considered the Mosquito a medium fast-bomber, not a light one.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 2, 2008)

mosquito surely it's a good bomber but if in raf inventory the wellington are the medium, and i don't think there is doubt on this, we must classifed the mosquito the light.


----------



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

Krazy Kraut I believe it is bomb load


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Sep 2, 2008)

I would say A-26 Invader. Fast bomber and was used all the way through Vietnam.


----------



## MacArther (Sep 2, 2008)

I'm stuck between the A-20 and the A-26. I like the A-20 for its sterling service, as well as being one of the first "gunships" in the air. The A-26 just refined the A-20, but it also was great at what it did. What about the PV-2 or PV-3?


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Sep 2, 2008)

MacArther said:


> I'm stuck between the A-20 and the A-26. I like the A-20 for its sterling service, as well as being one of the first "gunships" in the air. The A-26 just refined the A-20, but it also was great at what it did. What about the PV-2 or PV-3?



I agree with you about the A-20 / A-26. I personally like the A-20 better. It would have been interesting if they would have put turbosuperchargers on the P-70 version. It may have been a contending night fighter.

AFAIK, the PV-2 and PV-3 were a little on the slow side but pretty maneuverable.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 2, 2008)

They would have to switch to R-2800's as the R-2600 was found impractical to turbocharge. 2-stage supercharged (ie Corsair) R-2800's would be an interesting consideration as well.


----------



## Glider (Sep 2, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> I always considered the Mosquito a medium fast-bomber, not a light one.



The RAF considered the Mossie to be a light bomber if that helps


----------



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

it did....everyone said they liked it as a Medium bomber on the Medium bomber thread


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 2, 2008)

I think the criteria would be a combination of maximum bombload (ie short range missions) and the maximum range with a "useful" bombload. 

The thing with the mossie is that it was a "light bomber" (in terms of size, weight, and wing area) but operated at medium bomber spec. (in terms of bombload and range)


----------



## Flyboy2 (Sep 2, 2008)

Well then the Mossie was just one special plane wasn't it


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 3, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I think the criteria would be a combination of maximum bombload (ie short range missions) and the maximum range with a "useful" bombload.
> 
> The thing with the mossie is that it was a "light bomber" (in terms of size, weight, and wing area) but operated at medium bomber spec. (in terms of bombload and range)



the mossie was benifited in usefull load because no weapons and only 2 crew, (so more weight for fuel) the bombload it's good/regular for a light bomber (4*227 kg) with eadditional possiblity of load a 1814 kg bomb


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 3, 2008)

What was the job of the Second crewmen on the Mossie?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 3, 2008)

Bombardier ("bomb aimer" in RAF terminology iirc), and as radio operator as well I think.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 3, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> What was the job of the Second crewmen on the Mossie?


Navigator , EW operator but mainly nav


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 3, 2008)

Thanks pb and KK


----------



## Waynos (Sep 7, 2008)

In terms of classification, I have read before that the UK and USA classified their bombers differently and this may be the root of our misunderstandings. While the USA classification was based around payload and range, in the UK it was basically the size of the aircraft in relation to its contemporaries, eg Mossie = light, Wellingtom = medium, Lancaster = heavy. So it works either way depending on your standpoint.


----------

