Best Allied medium bomber 1942-1943 besides the Mosquito

There were a few odd ball PE-2s that might have been able to hit 360mph, but they came late, were built in tiny numbers and used engines of rather dubious quality even for Russian engines.
Klimov VK-107 - Wikipedia

With bombers as with fighters one has to ask "which model?"
Tomo mentions that the early B-25s were as fast as the early B-26. This is true, but does not address the fact that the early B-25, B-25A and B-25B were not combat capable. The B-26 MA was right off the assembly line with self sealing fuel tanks, crew armor and a huge capacity for bombs. B-26s went into action April 6, 1942. Contemporary B-25Cs also debuted on this day, but were limited in range due to internal tankage of only 674 gallons. B-25Cs and Ds received upgrades through their production run so the later blocks were far more capable than the earlier blocks. B-26 MAs served from April '42 to January '44 with virtually no upgrades, save a few minor armament changes. B-26Bs on the other hand, saw dramatic changes from their operational debut at Midway, where they were not much different from the original B-26 MA, except for the addition of a revised tail with a twin .50 cal mount, to the introduction of the long wing B-10 and C versions with extended wing span, fuselage gun packs, and hydraulic tail guns.

Shortround said "Early A-20s are disliked in the pacific due to short range." I suspect this dislike was at the operations level. From all I have read the pilots really liked the plane.
Here's a neat video on flying the A-20. Good rendition of multi-engine flying and emergency procedures. Interesting accommodations for observer pilots!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlzSkd9HKEo

Glider said:

My selection would be a Do 217 speed payload and range, but often overlooked.

Click to expand...

Might have required some special licensing deal though.

KiwiBiggles said:

Might have required some special licensing deal though.

Click to expand...

Well the SAAF used the Ju86 so anything is possible

KiwiBiggles said:

Might have required some special licensing deal though.

Click to expand...

There would be a massive performance loss when the roundels were painted on.

Somewhere we had some information on the Do-217. It like many of these bombers, had tremendous changes in performance depending on load.

The Germans, due to the short distances they sometimes operated over, sometimes listed some rather overweight conditions for their planes compared to the allies.
For example some during 1940 smoe JU-88s operated with rocket assisted take-off which enabled them to get into the air with a sizeable bomb load and full (or nearly full ) fuel tanks. However ceiling and rate of climb were still both going to suck compared to a bomber that took off several thousand pounds lighter.
Which performance specification due you use? The bomb load/distance one for the normal plane or the one blasted off the runway with rockets?

I would note that the Americans are often just as bad. Performance for early (and that can mean E & F) B-17s is often quoted at an absurdly low weight compared to how they operated over Europe in 1942/43.

Performance figures for the Early B-26 are given in the early manual at 26,734 lbs but that only covers 2000lbs worth of bombs and a very minimal amount of fuel. Plane grossed 28,706lbs with 2000lbs of bombs and just 465 gal of fuel. Max gross was over 33,000lbs.

Shortround6 said:

Performance figures for the Early B-26 are given in the early manual at 26,734 lbs but that only covers 2000lbs worth of bombs and a very minimal amount of fuel. Plane grossed 28,706lbs with 2000lbs of bombs and just 465 gal of fuel. Max gross was over 33,000lbs.

Click to expand...

Plus crew for the B-26 and B-25 is listed as 5 when operationally, it was usually 6 or 7. Operationally both American mediums had field modifications to add guns in nose and waist.
A-20, Baltimore, Maryland, Blenheim better classified as light bombers. Beaufort was a torpedo bomber

Shortround6 said:

Performance figures for the Early B-26 are given in the early manual at 26,734 lbs but that only covers 2000lbs worth of bombs and a very minimal amount of fuel. Plane grossed 28,706lbs with 2000lbs of bombs and just 465 gal of fuel. Max gross was over 33,000lbs.

Click to expand...

Even these early B-26s are impressive. For the attack on the Japanese fleet at Midway, four B-26s were armed with one 2000 lb really lousy torpedo each. Suzie Q serial number 40-1391, one of these bombers, was a baseline early B-26s which had serial numbers 40-1361 through 40-1561. I assume they all were. Flt test of one of these, 40-1361 show an absolute top speed at 14,250 ft was 326 mph which is the approximate top speed of a tested Zero at that altitude. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-26/B-26_40-1361_PHQ-M-19-1184-A.pdf http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/a6m2-oct2342.pdf
Accompanying these bombers was six TBF Avengers. To meet these 10 attackers, the Japanese had deployed over 30 fighters. Five Avengers were shot down while one was able to make it home, which makes me wonder if the Navy had the Avengers rather than the TBDs would the outcome of VT-8 been different? Of the four B-26s one was lost right away, Three had made it to weapon release point, one, after receiving devastating damage, tried to ram the Akagi island, which would have killed Nagumo. One escaped into the clouds and one, after flying down the deck of and strafing the Akagi, the pilot "then pushed his airspeed to outrun the Zeros that were pursuing him. They broke off the attack" (B-26s at Midway). There may be a question if this could be done. Given that the B-26 had approximately the same speed of the Zero, and that it was light, having flown 150 miles dragging an external torpedo, and then dropping it, it is not unreasonable for the Zeros to think it would take quite an effort to catch it. Or they may have thought it was no longer a threat and didn't want to get too far away from the carriers. Both the B-26s made it home heavily damaged. Suzie-Q had over 500 puncture holes in it wrecking most of the subsystems and flattening the tires and disabling one landing gear. Most of the crew were injured. Both planes were scrapped. But, it is a testimony that these planes performed their mission, although no torpedoes from either squadron damaged the Japanese, and after brutal attacks by a large number of opposing forces of some the best trained pilots in the world, were able to bring their crews home. The Zeros were armed with two .30 caliber machine guns and two 20 mm cannon and while there was not much ammo for the cannon, they would surely have used it against these planes. They had to be tough birds. The B-26s did get one Zero, an Avenger got another. Another item of interest is that of comment that the B-26 had leak proof tanks.

The US Army leaves an unwelcome calling card with Admiral Nagumo

I compared these comments to what was written in "Shattered Sword" and it was reasonably close although the book was not as detailed.

If you read about the development of the type 91 Japanese aerial torpedo, compared to the American aerial torpedo, it will make you sick to think how many men died trying to deliver these horrible things. Some one should have went to jail. Won't even talk about the submarine torpedo comparison!

davparlr said:

Even these early B-26s are impressive.
...
Suzie-Q had over 500 puncture holes in it wrecking most of the subsystems and flattening the tires and disabling one landing gear.

Click to expand...

Probably not every bomber in this poll could sustain such damage. Pe-2 could not definitely.
One more point for B-26.

Dimlee said:

Probably not every bomber in this poll could sustain such damage. Pe-2 could not definitely.
One more point for B-26.

Click to expand...

Both returning bombers were heavily damaged and, as I said, scrapped, yet were able to fly over 100 miles back to Midway!

davparlr said:

If you read about the development of the type 91 Japanese aerial torpedo, compared to the American aerial torpedo, it will make you sick to think how many men died trying to deliver these horrible things. Some one should have went to jail. Won't even talk about the submarine torpedo comparison!

Click to expand...

Inadequate weapon testing certainly didn't end with USN torpedoes in WW2, although one would think that the lesson would not have been forgotten quite so soon.

Inadequacies in armament of the B-26 and B-26B used at Midway (namely the ineffectiveness of the .30 cal nose and waist guns, and the excess weight of the 1500 rpg for the tail guns of the B-26B) were addressed with a modification order in July for subsequent aircraft to upgrade all .30 caliber guns to .50 caliber, and the introduction of a fixed nose gun. This gave the B-26Bs deployed to North Africa a total of nine .50 caliber guns (one fixed, eight flexible). B-26s were being phased out of the Pacific theater as early as September 1942, when the 77th BS in Alaska, and the 69th BS in the South Pacific began receiving B-25s. The change over was all but complete in early '43. By mid 1943, only one squadron of the 22nd BG was still operating the type in New Guinea, all initial run B-26s. These were finally withdrawn from service in January 1944. The surviving B-26s from Alaska were repatriated and spent the rest of their days as training ships, but the surviving B-26s and B-26Bs in the South Pacific and Australia were scrapped.
Long wing B-26Bs and Cs began arriving in England in early 1943, and in North Africa around mid-year. Prior to that the short wing B-26Bs were hard pressed against the Germans in North Africa and the two early low level missions over Europe were disastrous. The long wing Marauders, flown in strength at medium altitudes, with adequate escort, from Mid '43 racked up an enviably low combat loss ratio. They were eclipsed by the introduction of the A-26 in late '44. The A-26 was a generation ahead, providing the performance that the Air Force had been seeking when it initially contracted for the B-26 and B-25.
The B-25 was a "good enough" plane that proved very adaptable to the conditions in the Pacific where its conversion to a low level strafer made it the scourge of the South Pacific. Costing about 2/3 the price of a B-26, it was easier to build, maintain and fly. Plus its roomy nose compartment proved accommodating to the various weapons packages devised for its strafer role.

why aren't the axis mediums represented?

possible contenders might be Ju88, Ju188, G4M, Z1007

Not strictly in line with the thread parameters, because it didn't enter service until after 1943, but the JAAF Ki-67 I think is an interesting subject. It was designed in 1941, first flight December 1942. Seemingly carried a lighter offensive war load to the b-25, but unlike the B-25, where range dropped significantly when full load was carried, the 1102 kg warload specified for the "Peggy" was a typical bombload carried at ranges greatly exceeding those of the equivalent US twins. It was relatively fast when loaded, stressed for dive bombing could maintain a good rate of climb on a sustained basis. heavy defensive armament, armour, and had the range to hit US bases in the marianas from the home islands, which it did on several occasions. Strangely the Japanese only built 767 of the type, plus about 20 prototypes. it was manouverable enough to be developed into a high altitude bomber destroyer, in the form of the Ki109.

parsifal said:

Not strictly in line with the thread parameters, because it didn't enter service until after 1943, but the JAAF Ki-67 I think is an interesting subject. It was designed in 1941, first flight December 1942. Seemingly carried a lighter offensive war load to the b-25, but unlike the B-25, where range dropped significantly when full load was carried, the 1102 kg warload specified for the "Peggy" was a typical bombload carried at ranges greatly exceeding those of the equivalent US twins. It was relatively fast when loaded, stressed for dive bombing could maintain a good rate of climb on a sustained basis. heavy defensive armament, armour, and had the range to hit US bases in the marianas from the home islands, which it did on several occasions. Strangely the Japanese only built 767 of the type, plus about 20 prototypes. it was manouverable enough to be developed into a high altitude bomber destroyer, in the form of the Ki109.

Click to expand...

Always my second choice

parsifal said:

why aren't the axis mediums represented?

possible contenders might be Ju88, Ju188, G4M, Z1007

Click to expand...

Possibly because the question was Allied medium bombers? Internet Rule 38-11.09 specifies that any German aircraft must always win "best of" polls for WWII aircraft.

Actually for the Allies the PE-2, Martin 167, Blenheim, Beaufort and Hudson could be deleted from the list.
They are either light bombers or obsolete in 1942-43. Useful as they may be in some other roles or whatever their accomplishments in 1940-41.
Hampden is iffy.

By 1943 you better have 1600hp or better engines to be in the running.

Ki-67 was a very good airplane but it didn't go into service until 1944.

The first 1000 bomber raid by the RAF was predominantly done with Wellingtons in May 1942 on Cologne. The Wellington was being phased out at the time but in terms of numbers in Europe it was the big player, in front line retirement it carried everything an air plane could be asked to carry.