# Favorite "Back-water bomber"?



## Oreo (Aug 7, 2008)

Here I'm going to post a poll of quite a few different bombers that were often used in the lonely, desolate parts of the world during the war (though sometimes some of them may have fought on major fronts as well). These are mostly planes we don't talk much about, ones you're not super likely to see 3-foot prints of hanging on peoples' walls, but aircraft which still managed to do their part for the war effort. Vote your favorite, for whatever reason-- not necessarily best, unless you think so.

I know there are other planes I could include in this list, but just go with the ones I've put.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 7, 2008)

Well, I don't see any that you have put...


----------



## ccheese (Aug 7, 2008)

Where's the poll, Oreo ???? Did you forget it ??

Charles


----------



## Oreo (Aug 7, 2008)

Come on ya guys, you know it always takes a while for me to try to get them all written down!


----------



## Oreo (Aug 7, 2008)

I voted for the Baltimore because of its performance and armament.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 7, 2008)

Don't mind me, I'm just bustin your balls.


----------



## Juha (Aug 7, 2008)

Maybe I'll vote later, but I like
Martin Baltimore, because of its specs
Bristol Blenheim. because "Pelti-Heikki" was the main bomber type of the FAF during the war years
Vickers Wellesley, I don't know why but I have a soft spot for that original looking bomber which could carry bigger load much farther away than one would think
Mitsubishi Ki-51, Japanese Sturmovik

Juha


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 8, 2008)

I'll go with the Blenheim. Versatile as hell, it offered the British a good plane in the very early stages of the war. When it was introduced in 1935, it was faster than any plane in the British arsonal.


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 8, 2008)

Vultee Vengeance!! For an aircraft that performed so well over the jungles of New Guinea and Burma with precision attacks in direct support of allied troops, it always amazes me that it remains so obscure. It did its job with no glamour or glory and it did it well.


----------



## Juha (Aug 8, 2008)

Wildcat
What a surprise choice! I agree that it did well.

Juha


----------



## renrich (Aug 8, 2008)

TBD did yeoman duty both as torpedo and horizontal bomber in early raids on islands and at Coral Sea. The sacrifises of the Devastators at Midway allowed the SBDs to do their job.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 8, 2008)

For me it would need to be the Beafort. RAAF used it to good effect over the SWPA, at Bismarck sea. The RAF made life virtually impossible for the Kreigsmarine units at Brest, that effectively prevented Rheinebung from being implemented in full ( Scharnhorst and Gneisenau to sortie and link up with Bismarck, to form a squadron able to tackle nearly anything the Brits could throw at them). All of this prevented by the heroic and tireless efforts of one aircraft


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 9, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> I'll go with the Blenheim. Versatile as hell, it offered the British a good plane in the very early stages of the war. When it was introduced in 1935, it was faster than any plane in the British arsonal.



The Blenheim first flew in early 1935, the Hurricane prototype flew later that year. Both entered service in 1937.


----------



## Graeme (Aug 9, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> I'll go with the Blenheim. When it was introduced in 1935, it was faster than any plane in the British arsonal.





kool kitty89 said:


> The Blenheim first flew in early 1935



Out of curiosity, what do you guys consider to be a *Blenheim*? Top photo, bottom photo or both?...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 9, 2008)

Ok, the Bristo Type 142 (civil a/c) flew in April of '35, I'm not sure when the 142M first flew.

My point was that the Hurricane's flight was very close to the same time (if not before the 142M) and they were introduced in '37, only a few months apart. (deliveries of Blenheims starting in March and Hurricanes in October)


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 9, 2008)

Graeme said:


> Out of curiosity, what do you guys consider to be a *Blenheim*? Top photo, bottom photo or both?...


the Blenheim was out of date before the war now how the hell does it get more votes then the Hudson that was the mainstay of ASW for 2 years in all theatres a task the Bleheim could not even consider


----------



## parsifal (Aug 9, 2008)

Hi PB

I am the first to admit the inadequacies of the blenheim. By WWII it was slow, unarmoured, lightly armed, and unmanouverable. Its armament r, whilst mounted partly in a turret, only had been designed to allow that turret a 180 degree firing arc. They were supposed to engage attacks from the forward position by their pathetic fixed armament of 1 x 303 and a Browning MG...


However, it was adapted to many different roles, and did remain useful. after the debacle in France, many of the Bomber versions were up-armoured,and armed, and of course were utilzed as night bombers. They were found vulnerable to flak. Some were adapted to the ground attack role ( armoured, but grossly underpowered). Some formed the early markds of Long range Night Fighters, where they enjoyed some success, albeit costly to themselves. During the battle Of Britqain, two squadrons of of the NFs were re-allocated to Coastal Command, where they provided some long rnge protection against marauding FW 200s. These aircraft also performed general maritime recon roles, the same (or similar0 to that undertaken by the Hudson. The internal tankage of these later Blenheims was increased from about 250 gallons, to around 450 gallons, which greatly increased the practical range of the type. 

My understanding is that from 1942, the Canadians began to produce the Blongbroke, a Blenheim derivative, which was designed and used as a Maritime patrol Bomber. Dont know haow many of these were built but it seems to be at least 150. 

Blenheim is not my favourite either....too old slow and vulnerable for me, but it did perform a lot of duties, and that did include Maritme recon.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 9, 2008)

Also, I think I accidentally hit the blenheim Box, when I was aiming for the Beaqfort Box


----------



## Graeme (Aug 9, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Ok, the Bristo Type 142 (civil a/c) flew in April of '35, I'm not sure when the 142M first flew.



Yeah, trivial point, but I’m a trivial man.

The name Blenheim seems to have been applied shortly after the Yugoslav government purchasing commission visited the 142M production line on May 22 1936. The Blenheim first flew on the 25th June 1936. As you correctly point out, both the Spitfire and Hurricane prototypes had flown by this time. 

The Bristol Type 142 that flew in 1935 was the ‘brainchild’ of Lord Rothermere, who requested a high-speed executive aircraft that would be “the fastest commercial aeroplane in Europe”, at a cost of 18,500 pounds. Possibly anti-American, he was also hoping to kick-start Britain’s aviation industry, counter-blast America’s DC-1, and shame the RAF’s current fighter aircraft. Hence the name “Britain First.” 

He achieved his goal, the RAF did sit up and take notice, but when the Blenheim finally few, that incredible speed of Britain First had disappeared although the myth persists. Some sources claim the Blenheim was obsolescent by early 1938 and in mock combat Hurricanes were “running rings around it” early 1939. According to Mason (The British Bomber), despite the much advertised maximum speed of 280mph, it prove incapable of exceeding 215mph at 10,000ft with a full compliment of fuel, armament and bombs. Another points out that the anachronistic looking Vickers Wellesley was only 12mph slower at this altitude, but carried twice the bombload, further, and had the same defensive armament.

Lord Rothermere was so impressed with Britain First that he went back to Bristols and requested another executive transport, but with a maximum speed of 360mph, and was told “No!”

Maybe they should have tried. 

More trivia, regards Lord Rothermere… 

Harold Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Secret British government papers released in 2005 show that Rothermere wrote to Adolf Hitler congratulating him for the annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938, and encouraged him to march into Romania. The MI5 papers also show that Rothermere paid a retainer of £5,000 per year to Stephanie Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfürst, a glamorous Austrian princess and German spy, intending that she should bring him closer to Hitler's inner circle. She was known as "London's leading Nazi hostess". The secret services had been monitoring her since she came to Britain in the 1920s and regarded her as "an extremely dangerous person". As World War II loomed, Rothermere stopped the payments and their relationship deteriorated into threats and lawsuits.


----------



## machine shop tom (Aug 9, 2008)

I opted for the Baltimore. While it's bomb load wasn't terribly impressive, this aircraft did yeoman's work in the MTO. It fought for various air forces at a time when more effective planes were not yet available or were allocated to "higher" priority theaters.

tom


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 13, 2008)

I voted for the Mitsubuishi Ki 15 Babs, because I never heard of it before, so it must definitely be a backwater bomber! 

Though I think the Devastator and Vultee Vengeance deserve awards as well!


----------



## Flyboy2 (Aug 13, 2008)

Wasn't the Ki 15 some really ineffective single engined bomber that ended up being a communications aircraft?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 14, 2008)

Mitsubishi Ki-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Bernhart (Aug 14, 2008)

I like the hudson, it gave long service around the world, i think most countries where still using it at the end of the war.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 26, 2008)

Wildcat said:


> Vultee Vengeance!! For an aircraft that performed so well over the jungles of New Guinea and Burma with precision attacks in direct support of allied troops, it always amazes me that it remains so obscure. It did its job with no glamour or glory and it did it well.



A good backwater bomber if there ever was one. It is probably my second choice.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 26, 2008)

renrich said:


> TBD did yeoman duty both as torpedo and horizontal bomber in early raids on islands and at Coral Sea. The sacrifises of the Devastators at Midway allowed the SBDs to do their job.



The main reason I did not include the TBD was because I was unaware of it being used in backwater areas. The only instances I am aware of it being used are at Wake, the Coral Sea, and Midway, which were big, important, well-documented battles including the main thrusts of the opposing navies at the time - hardly backwater events. Perhaps it was used elsewhere-- I'm not sure, but my backwater aircraft are ones that were used extensively in forgotten or "sideline" theaters. Some, like Blenheim, may also have seen some action in mainline theaters and battles, but the Blenheim's extensive boonies use, especially in places like the CBI, Finland, and all up and down the Mediterranean, include it on the list.


----------



## Yerger (Jun 12, 2009)

Martin Maryland

I have books on every type I like, most multiple volumes. Stll waiting for a good one in English on the type


----------



## renrich (Jun 21, 2009)

Good poll! I voted for the Hudson also including it's close relative the Ventura. They served from the beginning to the end in many theatres.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 21, 2009)

I went with the B-10, the crew conpartment was very unusual and WAS able to outrun fighters.


----------



## zoul310 (Jul 7, 2009)

I will vote for the Hudson and his brother the Ventura. But equally important was the Blenheim line even if obsolete, was there for a long period in many theaters and filed the gap.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 7, 2009)

I voted for the Hudson/Ventura. As well as 'backwater' service, these types served with RAF Commonwealth squadrons in Europe, taking part in some key raids on vital industrial and military targets. The RNZAF were a sucessful user of the type in the ETO - have a look at the history of 487 Squadron as an example. 

I'm not sure where the great support for the Blenheim comes from  True, it served in many roles, but it wasn't much cop in any of them. It suffered heavily as a bomber, especially by 1941 - the casualties on RAF anti-shipping sweeps were simply appaling, flak and fighters carving the Blenheims up. It was awful as a day fighter during the BoB and indifferent as a nightfighter in the same period. So where exactly was it sucessful


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 8, 2009)

I think need add SM 79 to challengers was used in east africa and iraq


----------

