For sake of concision, I'm limiting this to twin engine bombers which were produced in some numbers (at least a few hundred) and saw action in 1942 and 1943. And not the Mosquito because we already know that is the best.
The best bomber for purposes of the poll is one which can best:
The A-20 is fast for a bomber, not "Mosquito Fast" but fast ~ 320 mph I guess depending on the variant. Very good by early-war standards. It has a 'medium' range (945 miles 'Combat range' per wiki, and carries a 4,000 bomb load which is good. Offensive armament was 'heavy' with 6 or more .50 cals and defensive armament was light to moderate, with a powered two gun turret in the later versions. They were quite good I think in the early years, and adapted well to the strafing role similar to the B-25 but not quite as much. Could (and did) also carry torpedos, which is useful. This is how the Russians used them a lot.
The B-25 is a little slower 272 mph, but it's the most heavily armed of all of them with powered turrets to boot, and has an impressive range of 1,350 miles (not sure if that is "Combat range" with bombs or ferry range or what, maybe someone can clarify). 3,000 lbs of bombs so a little less than an A-20. They adapted them to do skip-bombing which is very accurate and approximates a torpedo attack in terms of damage against ships, it also carried rockets and parafrag bombs, and per the Wiki, Ttorpedoes though I don't know that they ever did. And they mounted a 75mm cannon on it so I think we can say it was extra effective at criteria #2.
The Pe-2 is the fastest I think, though this is apparently a subject for debate. Also depends on the variant no doubt but I have seen the number 360 mph thrown around for a good while. Range is 'medium' at 721 miles, I assume this is "Combat Range" but maybe someone can clarify. It's rather lightly armed with one gunner and two or three defensive guns. In attack, it was allegedly stressed for dive-bombing though it didn't have that many offensive guns (usually just 2 Lmg or 1 Hmg) and carried 3,500 lbs of bombs though I'm not sure how many in the various bomb bays (it had small bomb bays in the Engine naecelles) or if that means external bombs too which would slow it down a lot. It must have been cheap to make because they made 11,000 of them.
The Tu-2 is arguably better than the Pe-2 in many respects. Fast, at 325 mph, heavily armed with 2 x 20mm cnanons and 3 Hmg defensive guns. Range was very good at 1,200 miles. Carried 3,300 lbs internally (i.e. for high-speed missions) plus 5,000 externally which is a lot. That would make it the heaviest bomb load carrying bomber of the four of them at 8,000 lbs I think though such a heavy external load would cut range and speed drastically. It was also stressed as a dive-bomber, though like the Ju-88 and the Pe-2, this really meant a "shallow dive" bomber, i.e. at a 45 degree angle rather than a near vertical dive like a Stuka. Still, probably more accurate than regular bombing. It must have been expensive to make however as they only made a few hundred during the war and I gather it was only used for "boutique" missions so to speak.
Of the four, I would say the B-25 was the most dangerous for fighters to attack, followed by the Tu-2. The Pe-2 would probably be the hardest to intercept though on the Russian front they faced very fast German fighters and took heavy losses. The first three, A-20, B-25 and Pe-2 all took pretty heavy losses especially against the Germans, (Pacific was a little safer for heavily armed bombers). The Tu-2 probably had the best loss rate but that may have been simply due to what kinds of missions it was sent on.
The most lethal to targets to me would be IMO the B-25, the Tu-2, the Pe-2 and the A-20 roughly in that order.
The B-25 and Tu-2 had the best range, I think (I'm relying mainly on Wikipedia here for numbers so prepared to be corrected).
The Tu-2 loses some ground though due to it's limited production run.
All four were pretty well armored i believe, and had self-sealing tanks. I know both the A-20 and the Pe-2 had issues with gunners getting killed and not being adequately protected in the earlier versions.
The ultimate question is really how survivable was it in a given sortie. To me, speed matters more than firepower for this, but that is just my opinion.
My vote goes to the Peshka overall, followed by the Tu-2, the B-25 and then the A-20. However if you were talking the key mid-war years, the A-20 and the Peshka look a lot better as they had a lot of impact early on.
I don't think any of the other bombers in the list were really comparable to these four. The B-26 was a disappointment, not that fast in spite of the very short wings, it should have been cancelled. Most of the British bombers on the list were obsolescent by 1942. Their best medium bomber other than the Mosquito was the Beaufighter, but i didn't put that on the list because it's a fighter, really.
Anyway, those are my thoughts, let me hear yours!
The best bomber for purposes of the poll is one which can best:
- Reach the target, i.e. it has decent range
- Hit the target and cause damage to it
- Survive the experience so that it can do it all again
- And also can be produced in sufficient numbers to affect the war
The A-20 is fast for a bomber, not "Mosquito Fast" but fast ~ 320 mph I guess depending on the variant. Very good by early-war standards. It has a 'medium' range (945 miles 'Combat range' per wiki, and carries a 4,000 bomb load which is good. Offensive armament was 'heavy' with 6 or more .50 cals and defensive armament was light to moderate, with a powered two gun turret in the later versions. They were quite good I think in the early years, and adapted well to the strafing role similar to the B-25 but not quite as much. Could (and did) also carry torpedos, which is useful. This is how the Russians used them a lot.
The B-25 is a little slower 272 mph, but it's the most heavily armed of all of them with powered turrets to boot, and has an impressive range of 1,350 miles (not sure if that is "Combat range" with bombs or ferry range or what, maybe someone can clarify). 3,000 lbs of bombs so a little less than an A-20. They adapted them to do skip-bombing which is very accurate and approximates a torpedo attack in terms of damage against ships, it also carried rockets and parafrag bombs, and per the Wiki, Ttorpedoes though I don't know that they ever did. And they mounted a 75mm cannon on it so I think we can say it was extra effective at criteria #2.
The Pe-2 is the fastest I think, though this is apparently a subject for debate. Also depends on the variant no doubt but I have seen the number 360 mph thrown around for a good while. Range is 'medium' at 721 miles, I assume this is "Combat Range" but maybe someone can clarify. It's rather lightly armed with one gunner and two or three defensive guns. In attack, it was allegedly stressed for dive-bombing though it didn't have that many offensive guns (usually just 2 Lmg or 1 Hmg) and carried 3,500 lbs of bombs though I'm not sure how many in the various bomb bays (it had small bomb bays in the Engine naecelles) or if that means external bombs too which would slow it down a lot. It must have been cheap to make because they made 11,000 of them.
The Tu-2 is arguably better than the Pe-2 in many respects. Fast, at 325 mph, heavily armed with 2 x 20mm cnanons and 3 Hmg defensive guns. Range was very good at 1,200 miles. Carried 3,300 lbs internally (i.e. for high-speed missions) plus 5,000 externally which is a lot. That would make it the heaviest bomb load carrying bomber of the four of them at 8,000 lbs I think though such a heavy external load would cut range and speed drastically. It was also stressed as a dive-bomber, though like the Ju-88 and the Pe-2, this really meant a "shallow dive" bomber, i.e. at a 45 degree angle rather than a near vertical dive like a Stuka. Still, probably more accurate than regular bombing. It must have been expensive to make however as they only made a few hundred during the war and I gather it was only used for "boutique" missions so to speak.
Of the four, I would say the B-25 was the most dangerous for fighters to attack, followed by the Tu-2. The Pe-2 would probably be the hardest to intercept though on the Russian front they faced very fast German fighters and took heavy losses. The first three, A-20, B-25 and Pe-2 all took pretty heavy losses especially against the Germans, (Pacific was a little safer for heavily armed bombers). The Tu-2 probably had the best loss rate but that may have been simply due to what kinds of missions it was sent on.
The most lethal to targets to me would be IMO the B-25, the Tu-2, the Pe-2 and the A-20 roughly in that order.
The B-25 and Tu-2 had the best range, I think (I'm relying mainly on Wikipedia here for numbers so prepared to be corrected).
The Tu-2 loses some ground though due to it's limited production run.
All four were pretty well armored i believe, and had self-sealing tanks. I know both the A-20 and the Pe-2 had issues with gunners getting killed and not being adequately protected in the earlier versions.
The ultimate question is really how survivable was it in a given sortie. To me, speed matters more than firepower for this, but that is just my opinion.
My vote goes to the Peshka overall, followed by the Tu-2, the B-25 and then the A-20. However if you were talking the key mid-war years, the A-20 and the Peshka look a lot better as they had a lot of impact early on.
I don't think any of the other bombers in the list were really comparable to these four. The B-26 was a disappointment, not that fast in spite of the very short wings, it should have been cancelled. Most of the British bombers on the list were obsolescent by 1942. Their best medium bomber other than the Mosquito was the Beaufighter, but i didn't put that on the list because it's a fighter, really.
Anyway, those are my thoughts, let me hear yours!
), but the confusingly designated Douglas A-26/B-26. Fast, heavily armed, and long-lived.
