Best Allied medium bomber 1942-1943 besides the Mosquito (1 Viewer)

[parsifal]

I have doubts that the flak defences in NA were any lighter than in NW Europe. Overall, the numbers might be fewer, though the numbers of flak formations (flak divisions) were greater in the MTO than in NW Europe 9trouble is composition of a flak div was variable). Just from memory (read that as "I should check") there were 11 flak divs in 1942, not including the "Dads army" home based Reich Defences within Germany itself. From memory there were 2 flak divs in NA in 1942 and just one in western Europe. The majority of flak defences in the NA TO were concentrated about high value targets like airfields and ports. Same in the ETO, but there were many more potential targets in the ETO, so less concentration of defences per target in that TO.

Valid only in the 1942-3 period. things changed after the defeats in NA and Sicily.

 

[Greg Boeser]

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.
View attachment 489434

View attachment 489435

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.

The early B-26s entered combat with a crew of seven, a .30 cal in the nose, 3 .30 cals in the waist (left, right and tunnel), a twin .50 top turret, and a .50 in the tail. A single 250 gallon tank could be mounted in the left front bomb bay, increasing fuel load to 1212 gallons. These were originally unprotected steel tanks, though self sealing ones became available later. The 22nd began fitting .50 cals in the waist with sighting windows to improve visibility starting in June '42. Other field mods included a fixed .50 cal in the nose (on one aircraft) or extra sockets for .30 cals in the nose cone to cover the sides. (Guns were rarely mounted due to interference with the bombardier's primary job of dropping bombs.) Some aircraft had the flexible .30 cal in the nose exchanged for a .50 cal, But photo evidence shows that even into late '43 many still had the original .30 cal. The 28th Group in Alaska reduced the crew to four or five and deleted the manual guns due to a lack of aerial opposition. They specialized in torpedo and skip bombing, but the Aleutian weather limited operations. At least one was converted to strafer configuration with a pair of 20mm cannon and a pair of .50 cals poking through the nose cone, so the potential was there.
The 69th and 70th Bomb Squadrons used the very earliest B-26Bs off the production line, from Midway to Feb 1943. These aircraft differed from the B-26s in having a bit more armor, the modified tail for a pair of manual .50 cals and plumbing for up to four 250 gallon bomb bay tanks. These two squadrons also modified their aircraft, the 69th deleting the .30 cal nose gun and adding a fixed and a flexible .50 cal, and .50s at the waist positions. This occurred after Midway, but before being committed to the Solomons. The 70th upgraded the nose and waist guns to .50 cal, and added sockets for .30s in the nose cone sides. They also moved the ammo cans for the tail guns closer to the tail and reduced the ammo for them to 400 rpg. The 70th was the first B-26 unit to be issued package guns in October 1942.
B-26s were flying unescorted daylight missions to Rabaul from April to May 1942. Usually no more than 3-6 aircraft per mission. They were very tough to catch. B-25s could not get there (except photo recon) until improved models became available in late 1943, with fighter escort. After May B-26s were limited to attacking Japanese bases on the Northern New Guinea coast and supporting the fighting on the Kokoda Trail. A few missions were flown out of Darwin to attack Timor in late 1942. The 22nd BG lost 28 aircraft to enemy action between April 1942 and Janaury 1943, Seven of these were lost on the ground to bombing or strafing at Port Moresby. Six were lost to fighters.
To give a picture of the different operational environment between 1942 and the second half of 1943 when only the 19th BS was flying the B-26, the entire 22nd BG managed 841 combat sorties between April 6, 1942 and January 9, 1943. These involved flying from bases in Australia to Port Moresby to refuel followed by a strike against Rabaul, Lea/Salamaua, or Buna. Then a return flight to Port Moresby, followed by a flight back to Oz. Three days for a single mission. From July '43, to 9 January 1944, the 19th BS, based at Port Moresby, and Dobadura, and with the benefit of fighter cover, racked up over 500 combat sorties, losing only one plane to enemy action.
I have not seen similar stats for the B-25s with the 3rd BG or the 38th BG that were operating at the same time as the B-26s of the 22nd BG, but would love to compare them.

 

[J.A.W.]

I have doubts that the flak defences in NA were any lighter than in NW Europe. Overall, the numbers might be fewer, though the numbers of flak formations (flak divisions) were greater in the MTO than in NW Europe 9trouble is composition of a flak div was variable). Just from memory (read that as "I should check") there were 11 flak divs in 1942, not including the "Dads army" home based Reich Defences within Germany itself. From memory there were 2 flak divs in NA in 1942 and just one in western Europe. The majority of flak defences in the NA TO were concentrated about high value targets like airfields and ports. Same in the ETO, but there were many more potential targets in the ETO, so less concentration of defences per target in that TO.

Valid only in the 1942-3 period. things changed after the defeats in NA and Sicily.

AFAIR, among Rommel's regular whinges to Kesselring was a paucity of flak support.
The fluid front situation complicated matters, along with logistic difficulties.

Attacking the 'Atlantic Wall', even from 1942 - was a much more fraught deal..

The RAF thought that the new, fast, Lockheed Ventura - powered by the big R-2800's was worth trying
in a daylight raid on Dutch targets, but it turned out to be a virtual aerial 'Charge of the Light Brigade'
effort - with gongs as big as VC's duly handed out to the poor bloody Kiwis involved.

 

[Shortround6]

Medium bombers did have a lot of missions but you seem to be emphasizing the ground attack mission in direct support of the battlefield.

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.

Well you also asked for the BEST and lightweight, obsolete aircraft are hardly in the running for "best".
A lot of good work was done at great cost to the Crews of Blenheims in this time period for instance, that hardly means the Blenheim was one of the best bombers of those two years. It was used because it had to be, the other planes had not showed up in sufficient quantity.
Blenheims had been used for anti-shipping missions for years but four 250lbs or two 500lbs hardly qualifies as ideal armament for a twin engine, 3 man crew aircraft against ships.

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.

Few B-25Hs made into combat during this period? Most showed up in 1944. Earlir B-25s were quite capable of doing about 284mph and the very early ones could hit 300mph.

Service PE-2s were lucky they could hit 330mph. They had 3 different upper rear gun positions which did affect speed. The first one was pretty much enclosed and mounted a 7.62mm machine gun. The 2nd used a 12.7mm machine gun but was open to the elements at the rear. SInce this gunner was also the navigator it made working conditions less than ideal. The 3rd also used a 12.7mm gun but was enclosed and offered a wider field of fire, in large part due to the aerodynamic balance used. However the shape was less than ideal from the drag standpoint. Speeds for some of the early 1942 models had fallen as low as 310mph due to poor construction.
PE-2s as used by the Russians would have been near flops trying to do missions the British and American bombers did. In part due to poor equipment. Late 1941 production saw 1 plane in 3 fitted with a radio compass, later production did away with the radio compass completely for bombers. The Recon version of the PE-2 got them. PE-2s strafed with one 12.7 and one 7.62 machine guns. We have already mentioned the bomb load and the range. It doens't matter if the plane can do 330mph if it can't reach the target area and return.

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?

While mission to loss rate might be able to be found some of the other stuff is very hard to dig out, especially for Russian aircraft. Claims against ground targets are even less reliable that claims against aircraft. See Typhoon claims against tanks using rockets for insance.
Getting effective range when using external ordinance is also a difficult thing.

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.

B-25s started in North Africa with one Group (four squadrons) In Aug/Sept 1942 and did valuable service before-during- and after El Alamein.By winter spring there were four bomb groups (each with 4 squadrons?)
DUring the summer of 1943 they began to deploy some locally modified gun ships and during the Fall of 1943 (Aug 10th through Dec 31st) 183 additional gunships were modified at Sidi Ahmed, work continued into 1944.
SOme of the aircraft had been modified before leaving the states and others were modified as they were turned into gun ships. The lower turret was removed, waist hatches were cut into the fuselage with a gun out each side and tail position was installed with a single .50 cal.
Depending on model the gun ships had either 5 or six .50 cal guns in the glass nose.
These bombers had under wing racks that could hold up to four 250lb bombs under each wing and could still hold six 500lbs inside although I doubt they operated with such a load.
B-25s (and some of the other big mediums) could hit targets in Sicily or Italy from bases in North Africa. AND hit them with decent payloads.

 

[J.A.W.]

A2G attacks by aircraft approaching the size of medium bombers on heavily defended targets became so costly,
that even the P-38 was ( & in significant numbers, more 'Drip Snots' - ah, sorry - 'Droop Snoots' built, than Whirlwinds!)
expensively modified to take up the defacto medium bomber role, in the ETO.

 

[Schweik]

Medium bombers did have a lot of missions but you seem to be emphasizing the ground attack mission in direct support of the battlefield.

Well, there was a lot of that in 1942 - 1943. I was interested in the key turning points of the war like I said.

Med - Malta, El Alamein, Sicily, Sardania etc. - securing the supply lines for the UK
Pacific - Coral Sea, Midway, Milne Bay / Darwin, Solomons etc. - securing the "Pacific flank" of the US
Soviet Union - Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad, Kursk etc. - saving Russia from annihilation / collapse

In those campaigns and battles, both Tactical and Operational bombing were important, i.e ground attack vs. tanks and artillery on the one hand (or sinking ships), and attack vs. communications like rail yards and supply depots on the other. This is mostly what medium bombers did.

Conversely, Strategic bombing had not become that effective by 1943, with the possible exception of the Ploesti raid but that was done by heavy (B-24) bombers (even though they could have done it with Mosquitos )

Well you also asked for the BEST and lightweight, obsolete aircraft are hardly in the running for "best". The Blenheim ...

best doesn't necessarily mean the best design, I mean the most effective on the battlefield. Admittedly I never thought the Blenheim was in the running but I included it because it was there and somebody might surprise me.

Service PE-2s were lucky they could hit 330mph. They had 3 different upper rear gun positions which did affect speed. (snip) PE-2s as used by the Russians would have been near flops trying to do missions the British and American bombers did. (snip) We have already mentioned the bomb load and the range. It doens't matter if the plane can do 330mph if it can't reach the target area and return.

As you noted, they did have some Pe 2s / 3s with suitable navigation kit. It was not unusual even with RAF bombers flying from England to have a pathfinder for longer ranged missions. This was also common with the bombers in the Med - they used to use Venturas for this sometimes. I agree the Pe 2 was not heavily armed with offensive guns, but it wasn't a strafer, clearly there is more than one way to destroy a target. One of the interesting things about the Pe 2 was that it was stressed for dive-bombing and had dive brakes, probably only shallow dives (45 degrees like the Ju 88) but this did probably make it a more accurate bomber than the A-20, B-25 or B-26. The B-25 and A-20s made up for this by using innovative skip-bombing tactics I think developed in the Pacific but also used in the Med. A-20s could also carry torpedoes which is how the Soviets used them to a large extent up in the Baltic and (I think) in the Black Sea.. they could also use parafrags against airbases and so on.

But against ground targets, dive bombing is I think the most effective approach, that is why the Luftwaffe kept using Ju 87s for so long beyond the obvious expiration date of the design.

As for how Pe 2s would have fared in the Med or Pacific, I don't think you actually know any more than i do. The best we can do is make an educated guess, but I think they had some advantages.

While mission to loss rate might be able to be found some of the other stuff is very hard to dig out, especially for Russian aircraft. Claims against ground targets are even less reliable that claims against aircraft. See Typhoon claims against tanks using rockets for insance.
Getting effective range when using external ordinance is also a difficult thing.

Yes but now days we can compare German (and Japanese, Italian etc.) records to the claims, and get some idea of effectiveness. I'm interested in the sortie / loss ratios from the Soviets if anyone knows where that is.

B-25s started in North Africa with one Group (four squadrons) In Aug/Sept 1942 and did valuable service

I would tend to agree from what I've read in MAW so far - the B-25 raids in early 1943 seem to have done some significant damage against Axis shipping and destroyed a lot of enemy aircraft on the ground. They also didn't seem to take very heavy losses, though that is likely in large part due to heavy and effective protection from Spitfires and USAAF P-40F.

The real standout in those records though for maritime bombing and interdiction is the Beaufighter.

S

 

[Shortround6]

Try substituting, as much as possible, one aircraft for another.

Going back to the PE-2 it has a range in most sources of around 750-800 miles, at 80% of max speed ? According to one source the early ones had 287 US gallons of fuel and later ones got up to 392 gallons by enlarging the fuselage tank and adding extra tanks in the outer wings. The recon versions often carried drop tanks.
It suited Russian needs, especially as their fighters made lousy fighter bombers/close support aircraft.
However it was hardly a "medium" bomber being short of range, bombload and defensive armament.

The "Mediums" could perform a variety of roles and if dive bombing tanks wasn't one of them, then so be it. They could still attack supply dumps, roads/truck convoys, railroads, ports, ships at sea, air fields and other targets in addition to some strategic targets. Even without gun ship noses the later B-25C & Ds had two fixed .50s in the nose and one flexible.

The Hudson, Blenheim, Maryland and Beaufort just couldn't deliver the payloads the bigger bombers could. Weren't fast enough and didn't really have up to date defensive armament. The Big mediums were hardly invulnerable but a pair of .50s in a power turret beats whatever the others had.
The Ventura was speedy low down but the early ones had a rather restricted bomb load.

 

[davparlr]

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.

As usual, you are correct. The A-26 did not have as fast a landing speed as wing loading indicated, but the A-26B did have a landing speed of 100 mph, just 3 mph less than the B-26B. The B-25B landed at 90 mph, only 13 mph slower than the B-26B. I am a bit jaded, having trained in the AF in the 70s where ALL AF student pilots trained in the T-38 and learned how to fly in an aircraft that took 10k ft to do a loop and landed at around 160 mph, so I don't think 10 mph is significant, certainly not enough to make bigger wings. Also, as I have said before, change was in the air. In this time frame the, in addition to the A-26, the B-29 was in flight test and landing at 100 mph, The P-80 was close to first flight and landing at 104+ mph, the F-84 was soon to be on the drawing board and would be flying in couple of years with a landing speed of 129+ mph, and the B-47, which was in the concept stage and would fly within 5 years, had a landing speed of 207 mph. Fast planes require smaller wings. In addition, since lift is function of speed squared, if you want to lift more off the runway, don't build bigger wings, build faster planes. Faster planes usually need faster landing speeds. So, give me the extra speed of the short wings and I'll put up with the extra 13 mph on landing but I think 103 on landing would hohum.

 

[Shortround6]

Well, somethings are proportional going from 100 to 110 ia 10%. Going from say 80 to 100mph is a 25% increase.
Also remember that a lot of the accidents were from engine outs on take-off and the A-26 crossed over the B-26 here, a lot depended on how each plane was loaded but the minimum single engine control speed for the A-26 wasn't much different than the B-26.
Runways were growing length rather rapidly too so what was a tight squeeze for landing and take-off on a 1941 runway might have plenty of room on a 1944 runway (obviously not all runways were the same but the average length sure went up).

 

[J.A.W.]

Most twins of WW2 were pretty lethal ( some still are) in an 'engine out' event - while flying 'low & slow'.

See the F7F, Grumman had to add significant area to the tail, to ensure control authority,
& even then, the USN strictly limited its carrier clearance profile.

 

[davparlr]

Well, somethings are proportional going from 100 to 110 ia 10%. Going from say 80 to 100mph is a 25% increase.

I thought about this and pondered it somewhat but I remembered my pilot training days, some 48 years ago, and the changes we went through. For the first couple of months we trained in the T-41 (Cessna 172) (mainly to weed out the incompetent or those prone to air sickness), which had a landing speed of 70-80 mph, then we transition into the T-37 with an approach speed of 100-132 mph, after about four months we transitioned into the T-38 which has an approach speed of up to 200 mph for pattern flying (heavy fuel load)(178 mph minimum). We had very good ground training and excellent flight training. I don't remember any particular difficulties in any of the transitions. I was in the top 25% of my class but I don't remember too many having trouble with the T-38 and most graduated that made it to the T-38. So I still feel that with adequate training, the higher landing speeds should have been no problem.

Also remember that a lot of the accidents were from engine outs on take-off and the A-26 crossed over the B-26 here, a lot depended on how each plane was loaded but the minimum single engine control speed for the A-26 wasn't much different than the B-26.

This, I think, is a reasonable comment. I suspect the workload of a prop plane is much higher than a jet and general marginal power and asymmetric thrust, along with high torque would cause rough situations. I flew C-141s which were overpowered and engine out approaches were no sweat although you had to be on the rudder at go-around. Now an early KC-135 driver might have a different comment (we had the same power on three engines as they had on four (with water injection) and grossed out at about the same weight).

 

[Schweik]

Try substituting, as much as possible, one aircraft for another.

They are all different. An A-20 is a lot like a Pe-2, but a B-25 is not really like a Ju 88 or a Mosquito or a G4M. They all had different capabilities, different strengths and weaknesses, but I would definitely call them all medium bombers personally.

You can of course quibble over the definition of a "light bomber" vs. a "medium bomber" until the end of time, but as I pointed out previously, the same aircraft was often attributed both terms - the B-25 was classified as a "light bomber" by the Soviets. The definitions are not exact and are in fact to some extent subjective. At the risk of repetition, I explained my criteria for this thread in the OP (and by the list of aircraft that I included). It's true for example that the Blenheim carried a small bomb load by 1943 standards, but it was still being used in the role of a medium bomber in 1942 without a doubt, and when it was first deployed, a "light" bomber was something more like a Fairey Battle or a Stuka.

In reality, most twin-engined bombers in WW2 carried a fairly small bomb load if they were expected to operate at any kind of reasonable range.

Going back to the PE-2 it has a range in most sources of around 750-800 miles, at 80% of max speed ? According to one source the early ones had 287 US gallons of fuel and later ones got up to 392 gallons by enlarging the fuselage tank and adding extra tanks in the outer wings. The recon versions often carried drop tanks.
It suited Russian needs, especially as their fighters made lousy fighter bombers/close support aircraft.

I don't know what you would base that statement on - by 1942 all Russian fighters had 20mm cannons or better (and by 1943 some had 37 or 45mm cannon) and they were carrying rockets back to the I-153 biplanes. And of course they also carried bombs. They tended to be highly maneuverable and structurally solid. So I would say they were quite good fighter-bombers actually.

Whether you want to call it, the Pe-2 was clearly an effective twin engined bomber. And the Soviets found it more useful than the B-25, which was too slow for the Russian front and took prohibitive losses, requiring them to shift it to using it mostly for night bombing.

However it was hardly a "medium" bomber being short of range, bombload and defensive armament.

Ok, lets compare some stats:

///------------------------------ A-20C /--------/ Pe -2 ///
Speed------------------------- 330 mph /// 340 mph
Cruise speed---------------- 256 mph /// 272 mph
Climb--------------------------
Range with bombs -------- 745 miles /// 721 miles
Ferry Range----------------- 2300 m ///
Bomb load at that range- 1,000 lbs /// 1,323 lbs (internal)
Max Bomb load ----------- 4,000 lbs /// 3,520 lbs
Rockets? ------------------- No /// Yes
Defensive guns ----------- 3 x .30 cal /// 1 x 12.7mm, 2 x 7.62 mm
Turrets ---------------------- No /// 1Turret, 2 manual mounts
Offensive guns ------------ 4 x .30 cal /// 1 x 12.7mm, 1x 7.62 mm
Stressed for Dive bomb-- No /// Yes
Acrobatic -------------------- No /// Yes
Torpedoes ------------------- Yes /// No

To me it looks like the only real difference is the Pe -2 can dive bomb while the A-20 can't, but the A-20 can carry torpedoes while the Pe-2 can't.

Whether you consider these light or medium, they are clearly near-equivalent, while performing somewhat different missions .

The "Mediums" could perform a variety of roles and if dive bombing tanks wasn't one of them, then so be it. They could still attack supply dumps, roads/truck convoys, railroads, ports, ships at sea, air fields and other targets in addition to some strategic targets. Even without gun ship noses the later B-25C & Ds had two fixed .50s in the nose and one flexible.

Can you refresh my memory what Strategic bombing missions did B-25's perform in 1942 or 1943?

Even in those years, the B-25 was an effective aircraft, but it did have flaws. Lacked a tail gun for one thing, even though it had a lot of guns. Axis pilots very quickly figured this out and it became (almost literally) an Achilles heel.

Level bombing of Operational targets is one way to use a medium (or light) bomber, but there are other ways.

The Hudson, Blenheim, Maryland and Beaufort just couldn't deliver the payloads the bigger bombers could. Weren't fast enough and didn't really have up to date defensive armament. The Big mediums were hardly invulnerable but a pair of .50s in a power turret beats whatever the others had.
The Ventura was speedy low down but the early ones had a rather restricted bomb load.

You seem to be assuming that the Anglo-American approach was the only valid one. Lets reassess that. I would describe the following criteria as being important:

Accuracy
A lot of people here seem to think bomb load is the only thing that matters, but I disagree. The Germans got more tactical and operational benefit from their Stuka than they did any of their medium bombers, because the Stuka was so accurate. That is why they were still using it to drop bombs on tanks all the way through 1943. The allies basically switched over to fighter-bombers for most Tactical and Operational roles. Accurate bombing from altitude turned out to largely be a wartime myth - accurate bombing tended to be done at low altitude by aircraft with good agility and / or high speed. Prerferably both - like a Mosquito.

Survivability
The loss rate of a bomber was also of huge importance. Even in naval combat, attrition mattered, and even if your bombers were able to hit their target, you needed most of them to be able to make it back to base. There were of course, three schools of thought on this, the firepower school and the speed school and the high altitude school. Since high altitude bombing turned out to not really work very well in real world conditions, it came down to firepower vs. speed. Firepower had some merits, but against planes like a Fw 190 with four 20mm cannon,.let alone a heavy fighter armed with high caliber cannons or rockets, it basically proved to be useless. Ultimately (and this was becoming apparent by 1943) speed is life, and that is certainly something the Pe-2 had.

Versatility
Another key value was versatiltiy. This is something that most of the best American and Russian bombers had in their favor. It was certainly the saving grace of the B-25. But Russian aircraft tended to get a lot of field modifications and add-ons as well, though perhaps not as much - one key thing they did though was adding rockets to almost all of their fighters and fast bombers very early on. Versatility could be the key to survival, such as by adding guns (up-gunning the Pe-2 to the 12.7mm turret helped a lot, as did adding multiple extra .50 cals to the nose of the B-25 to make it into a strafer) or by developing new attack methods (like skip-bombing for B-25s in the Pacific).

I think what made an aircraft effective was it's ability to accomplish it's mission. Getting into semantic debates about what qualifies as a light or medium bomber is kind of pointless, the real issue is which aircraft could perform it's mission best.

S

 

[Shortround6]

I would be rather leary of Soviet definitions. How much was motivated by propaganda I don't know.
Definitions did change with time but for the British the Blenheim was always a light bomber and the Mosquito at least to some point in 1944 was a light bomber and any squadron using either one (as bombers) were called light bomber squadrons. In 1944 a list of RAF bomber squadrons has the lend lease A-20s in light bomber squadrons and the B-25s are in medium bomber squadrons as are the few squadrons still equipped with Wellingtons (although one Wellington squadron is a torpedo bomber squadron).

Russian fighters were lousy fighter bombers because they carried light armament and light bomb loads. There is no escaping that. the V-12 powered fighters had as single 20mm cannon, the 37mm and 45mm cannon get a lot of ink/bandwidth but total production numbers? The Russian 20mm cannon was also a bit limited in power. It sure wasn't the best 20mm at piercing armor and it carried about 1/2 the explosive that the Hispano did. Ammo carried was little on the light side too.
Hurricane was certainly obsolete as a fighter but for ground attack it could carry twice the bomb load of a Russian fighter (the Russians top out at two 220lb bombs unless you get the Yak with bomb bay behind the pilot) and 120-140 rounds of 20mm ammo don't come close to the Hurricanes 360 rounds of 20mm and the Hurricane carried the least amount of 20mm ammo per gun of any common Allied fighter using the 20mm gun.
Russians usually had two 12.7mm machine guns with 220-250 rounds per gun. Basically you need two Russian fighters to carry the same ordnance as one Western fighter.
The Russian rockets are a real hoot. The entire RS-82 rocket weighed 15lbs, that includes everything from the nose fuse to the propellent and tail fins. Actual explosive in the warhead was 360 grams, less than a 75mm artillery shell or 81 mm mortar.
The British 3in rocket used a 60lb warhead with 12 lbs of explosive (5400 grams), it actually used 11 lbs of propellent.

So yes, the Russian fighters made poor fighter bombers in that you needed to use a lot of them to get the same effect the Americans and British could get with much smaller numbers.

Ok, lets compare some stats:

Ok lets bu how about we use the right numbers.

///------------------------------ A-20C /--------/ Pe -2 ///
Speed------------------------- 340+ mph /// 325 mph
Cruise speed---------------- 253 mph /// 260 mph........For the A-20B it could cruise at 253mph at 12,000ft using 1900rpm in auto lean for a range of 740 miles on 500 gallons of gas. You could run an A-20 at just over 300mph using max continuous power but the range really dropped.
Climb--------------------------
Range with bombs -------- see above/// 721 miles
Ferry Range----------------- 2300 m ///
Bomb load at that range- 745miles with 1000lbs////
Max Bomb load ? 2000lb internal /// 1320lbs internal, 2200lbs external
Rockets? No /// Yes
Defensive guns ----------- 3 x .30 cal /// 1 x 12.7mm, 2 x 7.62 mm*
Turrets ---------------------- No /// 1Turret, 2 manual mounts*
Offensive guns ------------ 4 x .30 cal /// 1 x 12.7mm, 1x 7.62 mm
Stressed for Dive bomb-- No /// Yes
Acrobatic -------------------- No /// Yes
Torpedoes ------------------- Yes /// No[/QUOTE]

* armament for the PE-2 is screwed up. It started with two 7.62s one behind the pilot and one out the bottom with the radio operator. The came replacing the 7.62 out the bottom with a 12.7 (with limited ammo), then came replacing the gun behind the cockpit with an OPEN 12.7mm mount. at some point they added the 7.62 to the radio operator firing out the side (He/she already was manning the 12.7) that could be switched form side to side to side or held in the arms and fired out a top hatch. The "turret" only showed later and was "powered" by the gunners arms/upper body (and a wind vane).

Please note the A-20G started coming off the production lines in March of 1943 although the two gun turret did not show up for quite a while.

Hundreds of B-25s had tail guns added after leaving the factory, some in a modification center in the US and some in the field, I beleive that has already been mentioned.

The Stuka was bit over rated and you also have to consider what was the Russian scale of issue of AA guns. I would note that the Germans didn't try using Stukas very much in the west in 1943. Too many fighters and British/American AA guns were popping up all over the place.

 

[wlewisiii]

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

The DB-7/A-20 has always been one of my favorite bombers and from everything I've read, I would agree with your take on the pilot's feelings. Perhaps the range could have been longer but the aircraft was fast and nimble for an early war bomber and gave as well as any could hope to everywhere she was used.

Thank you for the video. I enjoyed watching it.

 

[J.A.W.]

@ SR 6: actually, I think you'll find the Hurricane carried more 20mm ammo - than most early war - Spitfires did..

@ Schweik, "The Germans got more tactical & operational benefit from Stukas,
than they did from any of their mediums..."

Ah, no...

Check Poltava, in USSR, Bari in Italy, & the destructive raids on Allied airbases in Corsica, by the Kampfgruppen,
& I'm pretty sure, Stukas didn't tote anti-shipping missiles, either..

 

[Shortround6]

@ SR 6: actually, I think you'll find the Hurricane carried more 20mm ammo - than most early war - Spitfires did..

True, but the Spits, once they got belt feeds had 120rpg not 90RPG Like the Hurricane so they had 240 rounds and not 360. Granted the Hurricane got rid of it's ammo faster. Twice as many shells per firing pass.
The other major fighter bomber of the years in question (1942-43) was the P-40 Warhawk. The Tomahawks wearing out. The P-40 had the famous six .50s and while not as destructive as 20mm cannon that is not a bad strafing armament as proved by may solid nosed A-20s and B-25/26 with the package guns. Many P-40s could carry a single 500lb under the fuselage and light bombs under the wings. a single 100lb or three 40lb under each wing. Later P-40s could carry more and field modifications allowed for two 250lb bombs instead of the single 500lb.
at this point in the war the P-38s and P-47s weren't being used that often for ground attack. Some yes but more often they were flying top cover for the ground attack planes.
My point was that the Russians, because of low powered engines in their fighters (mainly the M-105) had fighters with less armament than the western nations and so needed light bombers (Il-2s and PE-2s) to make up the difference. I am not saying the PE-2 didn't do a lot of good work, just that it didn't have the range and bomb load to do what the Western "mediums" did. The Western Mediums may not have been able to dive bomb but the Western nations had other aircraft for attacking point targets that were less vulnerable to flak.

 

[Schweik]

I would be rather leary of Soviet definitions. How much was motivated by propaganda I don't know.

No, you clearly don't, but that doesn't seem to stop you from assuming that Soviet sources are invalid. At the risk of stating the obvious, allow me to point out that all sides in WW2, especially the Germans by the way, engaged in Propaganda. But the records which have emerged on sites like the one I linked, are from translations of internal Soviet records and interviews with Russian pilots after the end of the Cold War. They are as valid as any other equivalent documentary evidence and to dismiss them out hand is to intentionally limit your understanding of the history, pure and simple.

The terms "light" and "medium" bomber were not scientific, objective terms but were obviously subjective terms of convenience for bureaucratic offices, and were redefined on an ongoing basis. What qualified as a 'light bomber' in 1940, or 1942, or 1943, or 1944 was different. The later model Mosquito carried a larger bomb load than a B-25 so I don't know what criteria would define the former as a 'light' bomber and the latter as a 'medium', unless it was a reference to what altitude they were flying at..

Russian fighters were lousy fighter bombers because they carried light armament and light bomb loads. There is no escaping that. the V-12 powered fighters had as single 20mm cannon, the 37mm and 45mm cannon get a lot of ink/bandwidth but total production numbers? The Russian 20mm cannon was also a bit limited in power. It sure wasn't the best 20mm at piercing armor and it carried about 1/2 the explosive that the Hispano did. Ammo carried was little on the light side too.

Any 20mm cannon, even if you think it's "a bit limited in power" Soviet type, hits harder than a machine gun, and more than hard enough to knock out most vehicles on the battlefront. Even heavy tanks can be disabled (blown off wheels and tracks, damaged engines etc.) by 20mm cannon hits, but more importantly the support vehicles, artillery, AA guns, AT guns, armored cars, halftracks, trucks, carts, and so on and so forth are literally torn to pieces in seconds by a few 20mm cannon shells. I don't know exactly how many 23mm, 37mm or 45mm cannon armed aircraft they actually got into the field and I don't think you do either (maybe somebody else knows and can post), but I know it was more than just a handful. And we know how effective a couple of 40mm or 37mm AT guns were on a Hurricane or a Stuka don't we? Even when they werne't made in the tens of thousands.

Hurricane was certainly obsolete as a fighter

Yes it certainly was, but you are missing a fundamental (and obvious) point about Soviet V-12 fighters, the nose-mounted guns (particularly the spinner-mounted cannon) were more accurate than wing-mounted guns. So you don't need as many of them. I think this is pretty well understood when it came to Me 109s for example. Successful military designs are not all about firepower or the number of guns. The accuracy of the guns matter, just like the accuracy of the bombing. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

The Russian rockets are a real hoot. The entire RS-82 rocket weighed 15lbs, ... Actual explosive in the warhead was 360 grams, less than a 75mm artillery shell or 81 mm mortar.

I don't know if you have ever seen an 81mm mortar shell go off but it's more than enough to kill people, destroy trucks, disable guns and so on. And if say, 8 of them (the normal load on a Soviet fighter) hit a tank, it's a fairly safe bet the tank is going to suffer some serious damage as well. The Soviets were using rockets on a large scale long before the Anglo-Americans were, and the latter quickly realized how effective rockets could be. Also, as I'm sure you are well aware, the RS-82 was not the only rocket the Soviets used on their fighters and ground attack aircraft. They also used the RS-132 which had more than double the size warhead of the RS-82 (and was tested against Pz IVs which it was able to destroy), the RBS-82 and RBS-132 (AP warheads), the M-8 (RS_82 with double warhead size), the M-13 (10.8 lb warhead) etc..

So yes, the Russian fighters made poor fighter bombers in that you needed to use a lot of them to get the same effect the Americans and British could get with much smaller numbers.

The objective measure of whether they made good or bad fighter bombers was not based on the size of their rockets (size of ordinance in general seems to be a theme with you) but on how many enemy ground targets they could destroy.

Soviet fighters in 1942-43

• Were much faster and more maneuverable than say, a Hurricane
  
• Had 20mm cannon
  
• Had more accurate nose-mounted guns, including the 20mm cannon, 12.7mm mg, and fast-firing 7.62mm mg
  
• Had rockets going back to 1938 (including 132mm rockets)
• This means thousands of Russian fighters were going on G/A missions armed with rockets - which certainly had an impact by 1942
  
• I.e. they destroyed a lot of German tanks, armored vehicles, unarmored vehicles, and ordinance

Ok lets bu how about we use the right numbers.

///------------------------------ A-20C /--------/ Pe -2 ///
Speed------------------------- 340+ mph /// 325 mph

What is your source for this? Are you saying that the top speed for any variant of the Pe-2 is 325 mph? Any variant by the end of 1943?

The Stuka was bit over rated and you also have to consider what was the Russian scale of issue of AA guns. I would note that the Germans didn't try using Stukas very much in the west in 1943. Too many fighters and British/American AA guns were popping up all over the place.

Au contraire mon frere - the Germans were using large numbers of Ju-87s to bomb allied troops in Tunisia, Sicily and Italy all the way through 1943. They were also using them extensively in Russia as I previously mentioned. I recommend having a look at Shores Mediterranean Air War Vol 3 and Black Cross Red Star to familiarize yourself with the data. If you like I can quote some specific examples.

S

 

[Schweik]

Let me try an analogy on this constantly re-emphasized theme of heavier and heavier ordinance being the key to effectiveness.

• in Vietnam, the US armed forces dropped 7 million tons of bombs
• But these mostly did not hit the NVA or Vietcong targets. So they were not really militarily effective.They mostly destroyed trees, oxen, and civilians.
• Need I remind you, the US lost that war.
• A B-52 can carry an incredible 70,000 lbs of bombs (normal bomb load in Vietnam was 84 x 500 lb bombs internally + 24 more on wing pylons for a still staggering 52,000 lbs)
• An F-16 by contrast, typically carries "only" 4 Paveway laser-guided bombs, which depending on the type range from 500 to 2000 lbs each, or 8 Mark 83 (1000 lb) or 12 Mark 82 (500 lb) 'dumb' bombs. So a max 'typical' bomb load of ~ 8,000 lbs

Which do you think is a more effective bomber today, an F-16 or a B-52?

S

 

[Schweik]

@ SR 6: actually, I think you'll find the Hurricane carried more 20mm ammo - than most early war - Spitfires did..

@ Schweik, "The Germans got more tactical & operational benefit from Stukas,
than they did from any of their mediums..."

Ah, no...

Check Poltava, in USSR, Bari in Italy, & the destructive raids on Allied airbases in Corsica, by the Kampfgruppen,

I just read in Black Cross / Red Star that the Luftwaffe destroyed 40 Soviet tanks in one day in dive-bombing attacks by Ju-87s in 1942. That is the kind of day that wins battles, and I don't think they ever accomplished anything close to that with He 111 or Ju 88s.

& I'm pretty sure, Stukas didn't tote anti-shipping missiles, either..

no but they sunk a lot of ships by dive bombing. And the Germans didn't make that many anti-shipping missiles, cool as they were (I think they made ~1,000 HS-293 right?) With a dive bomber you don't need an expensive, complex guided missile to hit the target, which is my point. That was the value of the Ju 87 in spite of it's many obvious flaws.

S

 

[Schweik]

Just found this interesting excerpt on the Soviet use of the B-25. Even as a night-bomber they found it a little too vulnerable due to the 'achilles heel' tail gun problem. Apparently they added some kind of field-modified tail gun - I would love to see a photo of that because the tail section on the B-25 is so small it would be hard to get a guy in there. Anyway, evidently German night-fighter crews had figured out how to exploit the weakness with a sinister tactic:

"It was a beautiful aircraft": The Soviet B-25s

"Soviet aircrews quickly recognized the American bomber's Achilles heel, and asked the North American aviation company to rectify the issue. As the early-model B-25s lacked a tail gunner, Luftwaffe pilots quickly learned the Mitchell's blind spots, and German Bf-110 night fighter pilots developed a tactic in which they would follow a B-25 below the bomber until the Mitchell began its landing approach, upon which time the German fighter would attack. As Dudakov explained, the blind spot "enabled the German night fighter Bf-110 to seamlessly adapt to the bottom of the plane and follow it to the landing airfield, where the crew lost vigilance. [This tactic] killed several of IL-4s and B-25s." A single tail gun was thus added to the Soviet B-25s in an attempt to cover the bomber's blind spot, and starting in 1944, the VVS received B-25J models complete with two 12.77mm machine guns in the tail."

So in other words, though they liked the B-25, they found it of somewhat limited practical use on the battlefield. Too slow for low altitude tactical bombing, and a bit too vulnerable even at night. They also found that it required too long of a runway so they couldn't use it from banged up forward fields. They liked the big bomb load, easy handling and navigation kit, and made use of it as a transport and a long range (mostly night) bomber.

Obviously none of this means that the B-25 wasn't an effective bomber, I certainly think it was in the Pacific and I would say in the Med as well. It's just that in spite of their best efforts the Russians found it difficult to adapt to their needs. Not impossible but difficult. This is in part due to their strong need for tactical air power and to their inability to provide escorts for all, or even most of their bombing missions. For this reason they actually preferred the A-20 (as well as the Pe-2) due to it's higher speed.

Not every plane does equally well in all Theaters, clearly. Which is the kind of thing that makes "multi-dimensional" analysis of different aircraft types interesting and fun, instead of evaluating them on just one or two criteria (like bomb load or number of defensive guns for example).

S