Best Allied medium bomber 1942-1943 besides the Mosquito

[parsifal]

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.

Groan.....I need to get out more......

 

[Shortround6]

It was also used in the Med/Italy for considerably longer along the Martin 187/Baltimore.

 

[Greg Boeser]

It [Wellington] was also used in the Med/Italy for considerably longer along the Martin 187/Baltimore.

And the CBI!

 

[J.A.W.]

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

Agreed, I recall reading about maritime patrol Do 217's having the speed to outrun interception attempts
by Beaufighters, & carrier-borne FAA Wildcats/Sea Hurricanes too.

( & the thread heading title does not specify 'Allied only', even if the sub-heading does, so yeah, its a tad ambiguous).

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Thread title adjusted to match the poll.

 

[J.A.W.]

Cheers Chief!

Perhaps Greg B would like to start a thread to run a comparo between B-26 & Do 217?

Interesting fact, Martin & the Dornier both (unusually for medium bombers) - featured 4-blade props.

 

[wuzak]

Interesting fact, Martin & the Dornier both (unusually for medium bombers) - featured 4-blade props.

Not always the case for the 217.

 

[J.A.W.]

Yes Wayne, of Do 217's only the more powerful DB 603 powered machines - had 4-blade props,
& yet the similarly powered - Do 335 - reverted back to 3 bladers.. anyone know why?

(I dunno, unless maybe - it was a gun syncro' matter?)

 

[davparlr]

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.

This leaves the impression that the short wing B-26s were unsuccessful while the long wing versions were more so. I think this is misleading. On the first mission against Velsen, Netherlands, on 14 May, 1943, using short wing B-26s, the mission was a success as far as the B-26s were concerned. Bombs fell on target and all B-26s made it back to England, with one crashing on landing killing the pilot. Unfortunately, most of the time-delay bombs failed to explode or were easily disarmed by the Germans (one source said the delay was 30 minutes to give the Dutch workers time to escape). The second mission, on 17 May, 1943, was indeed a disaster for a couple of reasons. First, it was a re-attack only three days after the first attack and the Germans were then ready. A re-attack is always more dangerous. At Pearl Harbor, the Japanese lost 9 aircraft in the first attack, 20 in the second. Second, the mission was off preplanned course exposing the flight to intensive German anti-aircraft fire and extending their time over enemy controlled territory. A sad side note, 1st Lt Edward Norton was the pilot of one of the planes, his twin brother James, was his copilot. Both were killed.

ZZAirwar - 1943-05-17/17. B-26 41-18090 Norton North Sea off IJmuiden

I still believe the 30 mph top speed advantage, which makes catching and targeting more difficult, and the nearly 50 mph cruising speed advantage (cruising speed tends to be a variable), which significantly reduces exposure time over enemy territory, makes the short wing the smart wing and they needed to fix their training not their wing. The B-26 represented the future of higher wing loading and faster aircraft, AAF training was not ready. Wing loading at gross wt of the short wing B-26 was 45lb/sqft, the A-26 was 64lb/sqft, the B-29 was 77 lb/sqft.

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.

All valid arguments for a great plane.

 

[Shortround6]

Part of the problem with the B-26 is that it's "good" performance only comes at a rather low gross weight (much like many German Bombers).
The very early short wing jobs had the best performance but with rather limited bomb load/ range and defensive armament.On the early ones the bomb load and range could both be increased considerably but only at the cost of performance.
The very early ones were defended by three .50 cal guns and two .30s although this may have changed in the field.

Unfortunately, every time they "improved" the wing (made it longer or tilted it) they promptly increased the Gross weight and negated any low speed improvement in take-off/handling. ALthough landing may have gotten easier.

Please note that the A-26 used double slotted fowler flaps (first plane to do so) so that it's landing characteristics and indeed it's low speed characteristics (whacking big vertical stabilizer) were in no way proportional to it's wing loading.

 

[J.A.W.]

The USAAF knew better than to employ B-25 'strafers' against the murderous flak in the ETO.
Did the 9th AF ever deploy any A-series aircraft post D-day? Even P-38's were suffering prohibitive A2G losses.

& on the subject of the 9th AF, I vaguely recall a disasterous B-26 mission flown during the Ardennes/'bulge' fighting
around Xmas `44, when a strong LW response got through the P-47 escort & savaged the B-26 force.

 

[Schweik]

The USAAF knew better than to employ B-25 'strafers' against the murderous flak in the ETO.
Did the 9th AF ever deploy any A-series aircraft post D-day? Even P-38's were suffering prohibitive A2G losses.
.

I don't know about post D-Day but they were using B-25's to strafe German airfields and sink ships with skip-bombing attacks as late as April 1943 in the med, per Shores in MAW III.

Beaufighters and Hurricane IID's too, it's worth noting.

S

 

[J.A.W.]

Yeah, big difference between attacks in the wide wastes of the desert, or on extemporised sea logistics,
& assaulting 'Festung Europa' the 'Atlantic Wall', or heavily armed flak ships - in large, slow aircraft.

Hurricanes suffered so heavily in anti-V1 A2G attacks before D-day - that they were withdrawn,
whereas the RAF still deemed them capable - against the Nippon forces in Burma.

 

[Schweik]

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.

I'm sure some people would debate the definition of a medium bomber "to death" - the Soviets classified the B-25 as a "light bomber". Fortunately in the OP I specified what I meant, as:

" 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."

You have a very specific idea of what a bomber is for, but bombers had a lot of different missions. Including for example destroying tanks, blowing up artillery positions and sinking ships - not just bombing factories or bridges or rail yards or setting cities on fire. Whether a given bomber is obsolete is irrelevant, I'm simply referring to which aircraft were in use.

Of course earlier types carried lighter bomb loads. But the weight of the bomb load isn't the main criteria, it's effectively managing to damage the target. A Ju-87 carried a much lighter bomb load than a Wellington but I guarantee they destroyed a lot more tanks and ships.

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

That's your criteria, not mine.

You only need that kind of horsepower in a very heavy aircraft. A B-25H was only making 272 mph with two 1,700 hp engines but an early Pe- 2 managed ~340 mph (or better) with 1,210 hp engines. I know they put larger engines in them later of course.

I'm interested less in opinions or stats and more in concrete things like mission to loss rate, the number of targets actually destroyed, operational limitations like effective range, and overall effect on the battlefield. I know the Soviets tracked mission too loss rates for all the aircraft they used, which was most allied aircraft, anyone have those numbers handy?

The B-25 was clearly effective in a maritime role especially in the Pacific, I'm not sure how effective they were in tactical or operational role against land targets particularly in Europe and the Med. Not saying they weren't - they were in fairly heavy use so I'm sure they had value, I'm just interested in how that compares with other types.

As for the B-26, I'd like to see where it played a substantial role on the battlefield in 1942 or 1943. Can someone cite some examples? Ships sunk, tanks destroyed, aircraft destroyed on the ground that kind of thing?

S

 

[Schweik]

Yeah, big difference between attacks in the wide wastes of the desert, or on extemporised sea logistics,
& assaulting 'Festung Europa' the 'Atlantic Wall', or heavily armed flak ships - in large, slow aircraft.

But this thread is about 1942-1943 specifically. If they hadn't already won the battles like El Alemein in the Med and Midway / Coral Sea in the Pacific and so on, D-Day wouldn't have happened. If the Soviets hadn't won at Stalingrad, the Germans may have already beaten them by June 1944.

I'm talking about the aircraft used in these key pivot points of the war. Not the end or the downslope.

Hurricanes suffered so heavily in anti-V1 A2G attacks before D-day - that they were withdrawn,
whereas the RAF still deemed them capable - against the Nippon forces in Burma.

I think Hurricanes actually took heavy losses in Burma to Ki-43 etc.

 

[wuzak]

The USAAF knew better than to employ B-25 'strafers' against the murderous flak in the ETO.

Did the USAAF even operate B-25s in the ETO (ie, from Britain)?

 

[pbehn]

Did the USAAF even operate B-25s in the ETO (ie, from Britain)?

Not according to Wiki, the RAF received 900 though.

 

[Schweik]

Did the USAAF even operate B-25s in the ETO (ie, from Britain)?

They did plenty from Italy, including targets deep into Germany, occupied France, Yugoslavia etc.

 

[pbehn]

They did plenty from Italy, including targets deep into Germany, occupied France, Yugoslavia etc.

Gotta laugh at wiki, I just clicked on "Europe" but there is another section for "Middle East and Italy" which also describes operations in Austria The Balkans and Aegean 20 squadrons in total.

 

[KiwiBiggles]

They did plenty from Italy, including targets deep into Germany, occupied France, Yugoslavia etc.

Catch-22 is set in a B-25 squadron in Italy!