Or, more precisely, between June 22th 1941 (Axis attack on Soviet Union) and Sept 3rd 1943 (capitulation of Italy). Only the in-service bombers of the specified era. Looking for the best mix of bomb load and accuracy, range, survivability, handling, engine-out abilities etc. If the bomber can be easily series produced is also a plus. Future capabilities don't factor here, just the current ones within the specified time.
1941-1943: the best 2-engined bomber in service
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
What the heck, I'll go with the B-25 again. I just can't think of the Mosquito as a bomber. I know I know.
Ju-88 or Wellington, both were probably the best at their respective jobs at the start of the period, were still in service as bombers at the end of the period and found many other uses throughout the war before, after and during the specified period. Remarkable for two 1930s designs.
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,662
- May 13, 2018
B-25 for me. 1930s design used by allies and three US services, into the mid 1950s here by USAF.
- Thread starter
- #6
Do-217 was available in this time frame.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
B-26. Difficult to fly in some regimes, I've read, but good payload and speed.
Sure it's available since April '42
Admiral Beez
Major
Why these dates? What aircraft are you intending to exclude? Clearly you have something specific In mind?
I like the Beaufighter. By 1942-43 the RAF has heavy four engined bombers, so heavy twin engine bombers are less necessary. But Beaufighter and Mosquito have big opportunities.
Admiral Beez
Major
Italian twins are rare, but I like the Fiat BR.20, one of the few European bombers to serve in the Japanese airforce.
Fiat BR.20 Cicogna - Wikipedia
Fiat BR.20 Cicogna - Wikipedia
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Hit reply by accident. Again.
Shortround6
Major General
British were buying (or receiving lend-lease) hundreds if not several thousand medium bombers in 1942-43.
1575 Martin Baltimore's were built, most for the British.
The British did get hundreds of Lockheed Ventura's,
this did take some of the Pressure off the British Industry to make medium bombers.
The Beaufighter was a crappy bomber.
Low drag this was not. Adding a bomb under each wing was possible but then the drag goes up even more.
You also have no bomb aimer.
Admiral Beez
Major
Depends on what ordnance you're carrying. Put a torpedo and maybe eight 3" RPs and you've got one of the best twin engine maritime strike bombers of the war. Or are torpedo bombers, TBs no longer bombers?
Shortround6
Major General
Time shift. The rocket projectiles don't show up until late.
A lot depends on theater.
For example the US (cursed with the MK 13 torpedo) did rig some A-20s, B-25s and B-26s to carry the torpedo, just in case they got it to work
However they could also use the bombers for air field attack, shipping strikes, and even troop support and/or supply point bombing.
When you are operating planes at the end of a thousands of miles long supply chain versatility is a nice thing to have.
Over specialization is not so good.
The Beaufighter was a good night fighter in the early part of the war, it was a good long range, over water fighter, it was a good torpedo bomber/maritime strike aircraft. It got better in some roles (strike) with the addition of radar which the early strike versions did not have.
Medium bomber it was not.
B-25s and B-26s could carry large numbers of 100-250lb bombs, B-25 could carry six 500lb inside (or three 1000lbs bombs?) B-26 could carry eight 500lb or four 1000lb bombs and both planes could do it with a only a modest reduction in speed because the bombs were inside. The bombers gave more flexibility to suit bomb loads to intended targets. They were also better suited to carrying incendiaries.
A lot depends on theater.
For example the US (cursed with the MK 13 torpedo) did rig some A-20s, B-25s and B-26s to carry the torpedo, just in case they got it to work
However they could also use the bombers for air field attack, shipping strikes, and even troop support and/or supply point bombing.
When you are operating planes at the end of a thousands of miles long supply chain versatility is a nice thing to have.
Over specialization is not so good.
The Beaufighter was a good night fighter in the early part of the war, it was a good long range, over water fighter, it was a good torpedo bomber/maritime strike aircraft. It got better in some roles (strike) with the addition of radar which the early strike versions did not have.
Medium bomber it was not.
B-25s and B-26s could carry large numbers of 100-250lb bombs, B-25 could carry six 500lb inside (or three 1000lbs bombs?) B-26 could carry eight 500lb or four 1000lb bombs and both planes could do it with a only a modest reduction in speed because the bombs were inside. The bombers gave more flexibility to suit bomb loads to intended targets. They were also better suited to carrying incendiaries.
Admiral Beez
Major
You're in the wrong thread. The question isn't which is the best medium bomber, but which is the best twin engined bomber. For example, I wouldn't call the Mosquito a medium bomber at all, but it was a very good strike platform.
Perhaps you're looking for this thread, Best medium bomber of WWII?
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
