1941-1943: the best 2-engined bomber in service

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I propose the Avro Manchester.
Stop laughing.
Based on the dates given, on June 22ND 1941 the RR Vultures were starting to have Mod 44 implemented which significantly improved the Vultures reliability. The propeller and hydraulic system were still giving trouble, but overall the reliability AFTER THAT DATE was on par with the other Bomber Command aeroplanes in service at the same time.
Whilst after that date they served rather well, the night fighters were becoming more of a problem. As there are only two engines, damage to one often resulted in loss of the aeroplane. There were a number that made it back on one engine, but that was the exception rather than the rule.
From scanning "The Avro Manchester" Robert Kirby, they were typically flying with bomb loads around 6000 lbs on raids. Not many other twin engine bombers could carry that load a decent distance in mid 1941.
 
If limit to aircraft in combat service through all period, my top 5:
1. Ju-88
2. DB-7/A-20
3. Do-217
4. Pe-2
5. G4M
Honorary mentions:
Wellington, SM.79.

And if we stretch the definition of "bomber", I'd add Beaufighter and Bf 110.
 
Vincenzo said:
imho the Beaufighter was not a bomber
Click to expand...
Why not? Because of the lack of an internal bomb bay? That requirement would cancel out most of the single engined bombers, including most dive bombers and torpedo bombers. Is the Mosquito a bomber because of its internal bomb bay?

I like the Beaufort. Give it a pair of Hercules or RR V12s and it'll fly competitively into 1944. The RAN did well with their P&W models.
 
imho take a Ju 87 dive bomber put out the dive bomber capability and it's no more a bomber, is just a attack plane
dive bomber and torpedo bomber are just for their specialization, only a few are "plain" bomber

if not the bomb bay what is the difference from a bomber and a attack plane? the bombardier? ok and again the Beaufighter is not a bomber
 


Gee, you got me.

Perhaps you like (or approve) this sentence.

The Beaufighter was not an ultra light bomber or light bomber or or medium bomber or heavy bomber or super heavy bomber.

Now does it fit into this thread?
 
Vincenzo said:
if not the bomb bay what is the difference from a bomber and a attack plane? the bombardier?
Click to expand...
Fair enough. To me the eight gun Mosquito and twelve nose gun Mitchell are still bombers, but I'm good with your definition. So we'll stick to twin engined bombers with an internal bomb bay and a bombardier. Of course, date aside that excludes the first jet bomber, the single seat, underslung, bombardierless Arado Ar 234.
 
Last edited:
Different countries had different definitions.
for the US a bomber seemed to need a bomb aimer/bombardier.
The US made batches of A-20s, B-25s and A-26s with both solid gun noses and glass "bomber" noses. Sometimes a few glass nose planes would lead the solid nose planes on a bombing mission and the solid nose planes just dropped their bombs when they saw the glass nose lead plane/s drop theirs.
Droop snoot P-38s operated the same way. Outside of this time period but few people called the regular P-38s "bombers".
Torpedo bombers, either single engine or multi engine often carried a bomb aimer/bombardier.
Both the Devastator and the Avenger did. I believe the Barracuda did? The Japanese B5N and B6N did have a navigator/bomb aimer/observer with a bomb sight for level bombing.
I believe the G3M and G4M also had bomb sights and a crew man who was tasked with aiming the bombs (in addition to other duties?)
 
Admiral Beez said:
Fair enough. To me the eight gun Mosquito and twelve nose gun Mitchell are still bombers, but I'm good with your definition. So we'll stick to twin engined bombers with an internal bomb bay and a bombardier.
Click to expand...
Just the other evening i was thinking to the B-25 with all the guns in the nose, it's obviously more heavy of glass nose variant, so it's slower, probably a few in the horizontal but in the climb would be noticeable, and if they load also bombs also a reduced range, so probably is not good flying in mixed formations if the enemy is till in good shape
 
The Brits don't have much in this category (bomb bay with bombardier). Only Albemarle, Beaufort, Blenheim, Hampdens, Mosquito, Wellington and Whitley were produced in any number. Of these the Mosquito is the best. Though I do like and also want to include the Bombay and Harrow transport-bombers for their robust fixed undercarriage. If they could be spared I'd have sent all of both to North Africa, India-Burma or Malaya.
 
The Tiger Moth carried bombs. In my original view I included the Beaufighter because it's a torpedo bomber, and one of the best. But we're past this, and to me the consensus is that we're now looking at twin engined aircraft with internal bomb bays and bombardiers. I'm still good with this criteria.
 
Make a table with empty, standard load, and maximum load weights to get a rough idea of what a "Medium Bomber" was.

Now extend the table with the characteristics given.
 
Simon Thomas said:
I propose the Avro Manchester.
Click to expand...
RAF specifically classed it as a heavy bomber and it was supposed to serve on the same missions as the Stirlings and Halifaxes. If you do the weight comparison I mentioned, it's not in the ballpark. Also, look at the cost difference, crew size, fuel use, maintenance requirement, basing requirements, and overall operating cost. It's in an entirely different class.
 
Per the thread title - the class we are looking at is "the best 2-engined bomber in service"

The Manchester has 2 engines and it is a bomber.

The thread evolved so now it is "now looking at twin engined aircraft with internal bomb bays and bombardiers"

I can't quite see how it cannot be considered.

There is another thread running that is "Best medium bomber of WWII" - are you sure you are at the right address?
 

A good response and valid point. The Manchester should be considered. That said, I would contend the continual issues with its engines sufficiently degraded its effectiveness such that it is not the best twin-engined bomber of 1941-43.
 
I'd certainly consider Manchester here, it ticks the boxes of being a bomber and having two engines. Whether is a contender for the title - debatable IMO. But this is why we hang out here
 
33k in the air said:
A good response and valid point. The Manchester should be considered. That said, I would contend the continual issues with its engines sufficiently degraded its effectiveness such that it is not the best twin-engined bomber of 1941-43.
Click to expand...
At the first date we are looking at the Manchester was grounded (again) but this time it was to implement Mod 44 on the Vulture, which pretty much fixed the Vulture's reliability. It took until September 1941 to get all of them upgraded. The De Havilland propellers and the hydraulics were still problems, but after that date it was running at the around same reliability level of the others in Bomber Command.

As for the dates in question: The Manchester was in front line service from June 1941 until mid-1942. The last missions were not easy, as spare parts were becoming a problem. This was a result of Avro focusing on the Lancaster and RR dropping the Vulture. The RAF continued to use it until around autumn 1943, but not in front line service. The first Lancaster operational mission was 2 March 1942. As Lancaster numbers increased, obviously the Manchester was removed from service. I doubt any aircrew were sad to see the end of it. So for this question, the Manchester is not "in service" by Sept 1943.

On 8 April 1941 a new type of RAF bomber had it first operational mission, however in the following months it performed so badly that by September it was removed from service. I find it interesting that the RAF considered the Manchester adequate to keep in service at this time, but the B-17C was so bad it had to be removed.
 
elbmc1969 said:
Make a table with empty, standard load, and maximum load weights to get a rough idea of what a "Medium Bomber" was.
Click to expand...
Folks, this thread AFAICT is not exclusive to medium bombers. We're looking at twin engined bombers, full stop.
33k in the air said:
The Manchester should be considered. That said, I would contend the continual issues with its engines sufficiently degraded its effectiveness such that it is not the best twin-engined bomber of 1941-43.
Click to expand...
Agreed on both points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best Axis four engined bomber?
Replies
9
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Best piston engined fighter of 1945?
7 8 9
Replies
168
Views
15K
PAT303
P
1937-45: Doubling down on the 2-engined 'day fighters'
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
8K
Admiral Beez
A
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
Fairey 2-engined bomber - any worth in that?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Howard Gibson
Menu
Log in
Register