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

Best Allied medium bomber 1942-1943 besides the Mosquito

  • A-20 Havoc / Boston

    Votes: 3 8.8%
  • Pe-2 'Peshka'

    Votes: 2 5.9%
  • B-26 Marauder

    Votes: 6 17.6%
  • B-25 Mitchel

    Votes: 15 44.1%
  • Martin 187 / Baltimore

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Martin 167 / Maryland

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Britsol Beaufort

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bristol Blenheim

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • Vickers Wellington

    Votes: 2 5.9%
  • Tuovlev Tu-2

    Votes: 3 8.8%
  • Handley Page Hampden

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Lockheed Hudson or Ventura

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other (Explain)

    Votes: 2 5.9%

  • Total voters
    34

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Schweik

Banned
3,980
1,940
Mar 15, 2018
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:
  1. Reach the target, i.e. it has decent range
  2. Hit the target and cause damage to it
  3. Survive the experience so that it can do it all again
  4. And also can be produced in sufficient numbers to affect the war
To me it comes down to the Soviet and American bombers, namely the A-20, B-25, Pe-2 and Tu-2. I am willing to learn otherwise though.

640px-Douglas_A-20G_Havoc_USAF.jpg

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.

North_American_B-25_Mitchell.jpg

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.

Pe2-010.jpg

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.

9213ff195d1a207adb3fe06d6b7221d1.jpg


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!
 
Incredible as it may seem, the Lancaster was actually designed as a medium bomber, while the Mosquito was a light bomber.
 
Not to stir the pot (I'd never do that ;) ), but the confusingly designated Douglas A-26/B-26. Fast, heavily armed, and long-lived.

Oops! Thanks, Tomo

That means I switch my vote to the A-20, although the Martin 167 has its points. How many other bombers had the pilot make ace flying them?
 
Last edited:
A lot of the Russian data is very suspect. Especially the bomb loads. Wiki tends to go for maximum number Like max speed when lightly load. Max range when carrying max fuel and few, if any bombs. Max bomb load a plane could get off the runway with even if the plane was back on the runway in 20 minutes to refuel :)
The PE-2 had a bomb bay in the fuselage that carried four 100kg (220lb) bombs, it had a compartment in each engine nacelle that carried one 100kg (220lb) bomb. There were cassettes of smaller bombs 2-4lbs?.
external storage/racks were provide for four 250kg (550lb) bombs OR two 500kg (1100lb) bombs.
Now some of the "confusion" may come from the fact that near the end of the war some prototypes or very small batches were built wight ASh-82 radials and VK-107 engines of much greater power. But for the run of mill PE-2 the "normal" bomb load was 600kg and the max was listed as 1000kg.
The TU-2 barely makes this thread as only a very small batch were made during this time period and due to relocation of factories and higher priorities (engines needed for LA-5s) production was halted for a period of time. 16 had been produced of this later batch by the end of 1943.
Some of the post war versions (and several thousand were built post war) have very high bomb loads listed but the war time (1944-45) versions had a max of 3000kg and it is debatable about how much of this was inside.
 
Anyway, those are my thoughts, let me hear yours!

A lot of the Russian data is very suspect. Especially the bomb loads. Wiki tends to go for maximum number Like max speed when lightly load. Max range when carrying max fuel and few, if any bombs. Max bomb load a plane could get off the runway with even if the plane was back on the runway in 20 minutes to refuel :)
The PE-2 had a bomb bay in the fuselage that carried four 100kg (220lb) bombs, it had a compartment in each engine nacelle that carried one 100kg (220lb) bomb. There were cassettes of smaller bombs 2-4lbs?.
external storage/racks were provide for four 250kg (550lb) bombs OR two 500kg (1100lb) bombs.
Now some of the "confusion" may come from the fact that near the end of the war some prototypes or very small batches were built wight ASh-82 radials and VK-107 engines of much greater power. But for the run of mill PE-2 the "normal" bomb load was 600kg and the max was listed as 1000kg.

Russian data os okay, when it comes to their stuff. Problem is when people pitch figures that were made by prototypes (Pe-2 M82, Pe-2M VK-107) as relevant for run on the mill examples.
Serial produced examples of the Pe-2 were good for 300-330 mph, depending on altitude and engines. Max bomb load was indeed 1000 kg (~2200 lbs), normal was 600 kg (~1300 lbs). Bomber versions were good for 1200-1300 km of range - talk 700 miles - not a sign of a long range bomber people migh expect with 2 engines invested. 300 mile radius? Table taken from Shavrov's bible, in Spanish, can be translated: link

The TU-2 barely makes this thread as only a very small batch were made during this time period and due to relocation of factories and higher priorities (engines needed for LA-5s) production was halted for a period of time. 16 had been produced of this later batch by the end of 1943.
Some of the post war versions (and several thousand were built post war) have very high bomb loads listed but the war time (1944-45) versions had a max of 3000kg and it is debatable about how much of this was inside.

There were 79 Tu-2 produced in 1942, due to shortsightedness of Soviet brass/leadership it didn't entered mass production in 1943, when only 13 were produced. More than 4000 of M-82/ASh-82 engines were produced in 1942, while only 1129 of La-5 was produced in the same year - there was a big surplus of M82 engines in 1942, a reason why Soviets also tried Yak-7, Il-2 and Pe-2 with those, plus Pe-8 and Tu-2.
engine production
aircraft production
 
Trying to stay out of guns vs speed argument (at least for now) simple counts of guns is often very misleading.
Going back to the PE-2 most had a single 12.7 and a single 7.62 firing forward and these were fixed and aimed by the pilot.
Fixed forward firing guns are useful for strafing or perhaps planes flying in small very loose formations where the pilot has freedom to maneuver. They are almost useless in larger or tighter formations where a maneuvering bomber is in danger of colliding with it's squadron mates.
Then you have the manually aimed guns vs guns in power turrets. I emphasis "power" as some bombers had gun mounts that were called turrets but were manually powered or only partially power driven.
Slipstream blast hitting the gun barrel/s could make aiming anywhere except near the tail very difficult. Some of the early Russian mounts were extremely difficult to get the gun to point more than 40 degrees from the fuselage line. Please look at the photo you provided of the PE-2 and find that reverse shark fin on top of the gun-mount canopy. That is an aerodynamic balance. as the gunner moves the gun to right, for instance, the air pressure on the gun barrel is supposed to counteracted by the air pressure on that fin as it moves with the rear of the mount and so the gunner has to use much less muscle to aim the gun sideways.
British estimated that a gun in a powered mount was around 3 times more effective than an unpowered mount. Even powered mounts vary.
Then you have combat duration or firing time. The Russians didn't carry a lot of ammo for their defensive guns. Of course if you aren't flying very far into enemy territory then having 15-20 seconds of firing time may be OK.

The 2nd 7.62 gun on the PE-2 was given to the radio operator who already manned the lower rear 12.7 gun. The gunner, when he wasn't manning the 12.7mm and looking out the port holes could switch the gun from one side of the compartment to other and if feeling really ambitious/feisty could fire it out of a top hatch holding the gun in his arms while resting the gun barrel on the hatch edge.
The Germans had a real fetish about one man leaping about (or rather twisting like a contortionist) to man multiple guns pointed in different directions so actual gun count far exceeds the number of guns that could actually be fired at one time.

As far as the American B-26 goes, there is some confusion on that one. The early short wing ones could top 300mph pretty easy. It was the later tilted wing ones that were around 283mph top speed.

ANd that brings up another problem with comparisons. While a speed rating using a 5 minute rating on a fighter may tell you something, on bombers it tells you a lot less. Bomber speeds fluctuate much more than fighters due to load. And accelerating a bomber from cruise speed to top speed is going to use up a lot more of those 5 minutes. And again, flying in formation can really limit the use of high speeds, formation has to fly at speed of the slowest plane and/or the plane on the outside of a turn.
 
I vote for Tu-2 but have to admit that this aircraft was not as fully tested during WWII as other types mentioned. So it is a bit of "what if".
Still, there was general agreement among pilots and many (most?) historians that Tu-2 was significant step forward and could successfully replace not just Pe-2 but also Il-4 and even Il-2 in some operations and augment lend leased types. It was versatile, became the platform for various modifications, sturdy and reliable - after early production issues were resolved. Long post war career.
Probably, decision to stop production in 1942 was one of the worst mistakes made in Kremlin in relation to VVS.
 
I voted for the short wing B-26B, not the long wing B-26C.

I am a big fan of the A-20, which was about as fast as the Zero, and cruised at a speed where the Zero was starting to have control heaviness problems. If I had to fly one of these planes in this period, and not the Mosquito, it would be the A-20.

The B-25 was a great work horse, good at many things and a true war hero.

But I gotta vote for the B-26. In my opinion, it is under appreciated. It was 30 mph faster than the B-25, 27 mph faster in cruise (which meant less exposure to enemy defenses). It carried slightly less load a shorter distance than the B-25. But it had a demonstrable ability to penetrate tough defensive situations, including battle of Midway where three of four were able to get to weapon release points against the main fleet (none were successful. Bad torpedoes? Bad training? Too many alligators to concentrate on weapon delivery? All of the above?) The Japanese did report that the B-26s were blazingly fast and difficult to shoot down. In additional, they did have a good survivability reputation in the ETO. Early bad reputation was created due to normal developmental issues (weak nose gear) and, IMO, lack of understanding by the AAF of training pilots for high speed, high performance aircraft. An issue they, and Navy, would have to address in only a few years. They should not have lengthened the wings but should have trained better. They lost over 30 mph between the B and the C, some probably due to other things (e.g. weight increase). Speed is life.

The Pe-2 is impressive and very Mosquito-like in speed, is very small with limited load carrying ability.
 
I voted for the short wing B-26B, not the long wing B-26C.

I am a big fan of the A-20, which was about as fast as the Zero, and cruised at a speed where the Zero was starting to have control heaviness problems. If I had to fly one of these planes in this period, and not the Mosquito, it would be the A-20.

The B-25 was a great work horse, good at many things and a true war hero.

But I gotta vote for the B-26. In my opinion, it is under appreciated. It was 30 mph faster than the B-25, 27 mph faster in cruise (which meant less exposure to enemy defenses). It carried slightly less load a shorter distance than the B-25. But it had a demonstrable ability to penetrate tough defensive situations, including battle of Midway where three of four were able to get to weapon release points against the main fleet (none were successful. Bad torpedoes? Bad training? Too many alligators to concentrate on weapon delivery? All of the above?) The Japanese did report that the B-26s were blazingly fast and difficult to shoot down. In additional, they did have a good survivability reputation in the ETO. Early bad reputation was created due to normal developmental issues (weak nose gear) and, IMO, lack of understanding by the AAF of training pilots for high speed, high performance aircraft. An issue they, and Navy, would have to address in only a few years. They should not have lengthened the wings but should have trained better. They lost over 30 mph between the B and the C, some probably due to other things (e.g. weight increase). Speed is life.

The Pe-2 is impressive and very Mosquito-like in speed, is very small with limited load carrying ability.

Dave - Pe-2 was not comparable with Mossie with regard to the speed - 300-330 mph vs. 370-400.
Early A-20s were capable for 340+ mph, while the early B-25s were at 315-320 mph, as fast as early B-26s.

The torpedo saga was a sad one for the US military in 1942, we can just wonder what would've been the results of B-26s attacking the Japanese with bombs during the battle of Midway, wave-top.
 
Capabilities are all over the place as we are comparing planes that weighed under 17,000lbs and planes that weighed over 36,000lbs.
Obviously the big/fat boys can carry much more ordnance much further than the little guys.

And planes like the Wellington had been shuffled off to night bomber, maritime duties unless almost complete air superiority had been achieved.

Basicly the 3 best contenders are the A-20, the B-25 and the B-26 depending on mission if you are flying in daylight.
The TU-2 is too much of an unknown. The first 80 aircraft used ASh-82 engines and weighed around 880lb more empty than later aircraft which used ASh-82FN engines. Actual operational radius, speeds and bomb loads are lower than "book" figures but that is true of many western aircraft.
Many of the early service trial flights were around 310 miles (range or radius?) with 1000 to 2000kg bomb loads. Later, when th eplane was but back into production it was demanded that the plane be able to fly not less than 2000km with a 1000kg bomb load. The 1944 production planes may have been able to exceed this, I don't know.

The A-20, like most of the others, shows considerable variation in this 2 year time period. They start with 400 gallons of fuel, seven .30 cal guns and 2000lb of bombs and finish with 725 gallons of fuel, nine .50 cal guns and a possible 4000lbs of bombs (may require less fuel?), in any case pretty much anything over 2000lb requires under wing bomb racks.

B-25s go from Early C & D (and early ones had a single .30 in the nose and no tail guns ) to the H showing up (at the factory) with the 75mm gun, eight forward firing .50s, the top turret moved forward, waist and tail guns installed.

B-26s show a very large change in armament also although not quite so radical (no 75mm cannon:)

Early A-20s are disliked in the pacific due to short range.
 
Obviously, there's also a lot of influence by the tactical use: putting the Mosquito into a mass formation, as done with B-17s, would not work, nor is it likely unescorted B-25s would do well against a dense, well-managed air defense system, like that over Germany.

Or, to put it another way: how would the Fairey Battle do over the Somme in 1917?
 
Last edited:
None of the medium bombers are going to substitute for the B-17/B-24 in daylight.
In large part because they don't fly high enough. The lower you fly the more time the AA guns have to shoot ( mitigated somewhat by the higher speed of the mediums?) but more importantly the lesser flight times make the AA fire more accurate and decrease the error of the mechanical time fuses. 2% of 15 seconds or 2% of 20 seconds?
And none of the early ones are quite quick enough to use speed to get away from fighters (perhaps the A-20 but it doesn't have the fuel to keep it up for long) and they don't have the gun power to even attempt long running fights (or the ammo unless you run the weight up which forces the altitude down)
 
...
The TU-2 is too much of an unknown. The first 80 aircraft used ASh-82 engines and weighed around 880lb more empty than later aircraft which used ASh-82FN engines. Actual operational radius, speeds and bomb loads are lower than "book" figures but that is true of many western aircraft.
Many of the early service trial flights were around 310 miles (range or radius?) with 1000 to 2000kg bomb loads. Later, when th eplane was but back into production it was demanded that the plane be able to fly not less than 2000km with a 1000kg bomb load. The 1944 production planes may have been able to exceed this, I don't know.
...

Shavrov notes 2020 km range for the early Tu-2 with M-82: link
I'm not sure that early Tu-2 were heavier any bit than the Tu-2S examples.
 
They were supposed to have changed some of the structure, reduced the number of instrument , Reduced the hydraulic piping four fold and some other methods. Made the aircraft easier to manufacture and service in some ways.
 
Dave - Pe-2 was not comparable with Mossie with regard to the speed - 300-330 mph vs. 370-400.
Early A-20s were capable for 340+ mph, while the early B-25s were at 315-320 mph, as fast as early B-26s.

The torpedo saga was a sad one for the US military in 1942, we can just wonder what would've been the results of B-26s attacking the Japanese with bombs during the battle of Midway, wave-top.
As usual, you are correct on the B-25 and probably on the Pe-2 but both wikipedia and the book "Complete Encyclopedia on World Aircraft" state max airspeed of the Pe-2FT as 360 mph. The Russian say about 328 mph. They should know their own aircraft, so I believe you. :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back