Plus the Manchester Stirling and Halifax which were due to replace the 7 you mention and flew in the mentioned period, that is 10 in total, how many is "much" if 10 is "not much"
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Plus the Manchester Stirling and Halifax which were due to replace the 7 you mention and flew in the mentioned period, that is 10 in total, how many is "much" if 10 is "not much"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.
Manchester sure (I excluded it due to small production run), but aren't Stirling and Halifax four engined and thus outside the scope of this thread? But if you need the nitpicker's affirmation I'm good.Plus the Manchester Stirling and Halifax which were due to replace the 7 you mention and flew in the mentioned period, that is 10 in total, how many is "much" if 10 is "not much"
Of course they are, because basically a bomber was defined by payload and payload required more engines, only the Stirling was designed as a four engine bomber and the Mosquito is actually outside the time frame, it didn't get into service in time, otherwise it would be a possibility as a "pick" but in my opinion no where near what the Wellington did because it was there at that time in large numbers.Manchester sure (I excluded it due to small production run), but aren't Stirling and Halifax four engined and thus outside the scope of this thread? But if you need the nitpicker's affirmation I'm good.
The Wellington had strong potential, especially in the later torpedo strike role, nothing else carried twin fish. Cancel the Albemarle, Beaufort, Hampden and Whitley, direct this capacity to more Wellingtons and advance the development of the torpedo variant. The British understood capacity maximization in their single seat fighters, with focus on one type, the twenty thousand Spitfires, supported by bookends of Hawkers. But on twin engined bombers it was a nation of penny packet shopkeepers, with every firm getting a tiny piece of the Bomber Command pie. Instead pick the best, make the best.but in my opinion no where near what the Wellington did because it was there at that time in large numbers.
They would still have been replaced by 4 engine types apart from the Wellington which occupied a go to niche of range and internal capacity for all sorts of things, as well as use as a trainer.The Wellington had strong potential, especially in the later torpedo strike role, nothing else carried twin fish. Cancel the Albemarle, Beaufort, Hampden and Whitley, direct this capacity to more Wellingtons. The British understood capacity maximization in their single seat fighters, with focus on one type, the Spitfire, supported by bookends of Hawkers. But on twin engined bombers it was a nation of shopkeepers, with every firm getting a piece of the Bomber Command pie. Instead pick the best, make the best.
Sure. As the four engined heavies start entering service we reallocate the now greater number of Wellingtons to Coastal Command, North Africa and the I/PTO. Until they change to 20mm cannons the twin .303s on the Ki-27 and Ki-43 may have trouble shooting down the robust and well armed Wellington.They would still have been replaced by 4 engine types apart from the Wellington which occupied a go to niche of range and internal capacity for all sorts of things, as well as use as a trainer.
Me too. A hundred Beauforts at Singapore would have contributed nicely.... provided other deficiencies in command, strategy and air base location, support and defence are addressed. Otherwise keep them out.Always been partial to the Bristol Beaufort myself from the ones in this timeframe, but for "best", I'd think the Ju.88 tops the list by most standards?
The Wellington had strong potential, especially in the later torpedo strike role, nothing else carried twin fish. Cancel the Albemarle, Beaufort, Hampden and Whitley, direct this capacity to more Wellingtons and advance the development of the torpedo variant. The British understood capacity maximization in their single seat fighters, with focus on one type, the twenty thousand Spitfires, supported by bookends of Hawkers. But on twin engined bombers it was a nation of penny packet shopkeepers, with every firm getting a tiny piece of the Bomber Command pie. Instead pick the best, make the best.
British aircraft, perhaps, but the He111 and Ju88 did.The Wellington had strong potential, especially in the later torpedo strike role, nothing else carried twin fish.
British aircraft, perhaps, but the He111 and Ju88 did.
Torpedos carried internally?Allegedly, according to some Russian authors, DB-7C and A-20G carried two torpedoes in the Baltic and in the Black Sea. I've never seen a photo, however.
Externally. Special hardpoints, called most (bridge), were attached to the fuselage. The standard loadout was 1 torp on the starboard "bridge". 2 torps only when the target was within short range.Torpedos carried internally?
I'm looking at the pictures and I'm wondering if maybe the U.S. could have gotten some torpedoes (lend lease) FROM the USSR. I bet theirs worked.
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.