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

[Schweik]

Great in the Med, gives a lot of employment to the air/sea rescue boys

It just didn't have the range wanted. The A-20 went from 400 gallons to 540 gallons to 725 gallons. The B-25 went from 670 gallons on early C & D to 974 gallons in later C &D and all later aircraft in the wings, various ferry tank/combat tanks fitted later. B-26s started with 962 gallons in the wings with different arrangements of ferry tanks in the aft bomb bay.

So what? The Mosquoito only carried 458 gallons and had a far better range than any of those. The P-51D only carried 186 gallons and it flew further than any of them. Part of the reason was a much higher cruise speed! You analysis here is crude, war isn't so simple - aeronautics aren't so simple..

More to the point, Hurricanes were doing most of the tactical bombing in the Med and the Pe 2 out-ranged those significantly.

And as we have found out, it wasn't a Mosquito lite. It didn't really have the speed to keep it out of trouble.

Well speed is a factor. It's not the only factor, but it's a factor. I suspect speed is the main reason why the Pe 2 had a much lower loss rate than an A-20 in Soviet use (or an Il2)

According to this, the rate of missions per loss was:

Su-2 80
Pe-2 54
IL-2 (two seat) 26
A-20 19
IL-2 (single seat) 13

(source)

So given that the A-20 was a successful "light" bomber for the Desert Air Force in 1942 and 1943, that they had similar range and bomb loads, and given that the Pe-2 was (as a dive bomber) more accurate, and based on the above statistics - could survive almost three times as many missions in a row before being shot down. And it could carry rockets!... I think it's a safe bet that the Pe-2 would have been pretty useful in the Med.

Maybe then they could have used their A-20s more for torpedo bombing though they already had the excellent Beaufighter for that.

Bombers are essentially bomb trucks, how much tonnage over what distance.
If you can't reach the target it is useless. IF it requires 3 trips to do the same damage as another plane can with one it doesn't look good either.

That is certainly one way to look at it, but I don't think it's the only way. You did a good job of articulating the essence of our disagreement though. "Bomb Truck" is basically how the US approached heavy bomber missions in WW2 and in the Korean War and Vietnam, with limited and diminishing effectiveness. But it's not just about tonnage and range - to me it is a very simplistic way to evaluate a bomber.

Range and bomb load matter, of course. But accuracy, speed, survivability, performance, and versatility also matter. There is more than one kind of bombing mission, there is more than one kind of target. There is more than one type of threat.

And more than one way to accomplish a mission.

Other missions (recon, strafing, transport interceptor, etc) are icing on the cake.
Being difficult to fly isn't in the plus column.

I think the Pe-2 was easier to fly (and more maneuverable than the others), maybe you are thinking of the B-26? Pe-2 was qualified for acrobatics: loops, rolls, steep bank turns etc., according to that USAAF film you posted earlier, the A-20 wasn't rated for that. I know the B-26 wasn't!

S

 

[Schweik]

Since the Italians switched to the Allied side, how about the Savoia-Machetti SM.79?

Love the SM 79. I think it peaked before the Italians saw the light and got rid of Il Duce, but it certainly sunk some ships in it's day. I gather Italian torpedoes were pretty good.

Planning to build a model of and SM 79 soon...

 

[wuzak]

So what? The Mosquoito only carried 458 gallons and had a far better range than any of those.

The Mosquito had 536 UKG of internal fuel.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito_MkIV-merlin21_ads.jpg

The PR versions could have some more (auxiliary fuel tank in bomb bay).

 

[Schweik]

The Mosquito had 536 UKG of internal fuel.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito_MkIV-merlin21_ads.jpg

The PR versions could have some more (auxiliary fuel tank in bomb bay).

I think it varies by type right? I got my figure from wikipedia.

By the way, as a side topic (maybe I should open a new thread for this) what are some good books for general WW2 airplane statistics like that? When i was a kid I poured over books by guys like Bill Gunston and Martin Caiden with all the stats on WW2 planes, and I have a few from that era (sadly, "when I was a kid" was many decades ago now) but they are outdated, with a lot of incorrect information and cliches. We have learned a lot since the 80's and 90's.

What are y'alls favorite books / authors when it comes to generalized (but up to date) guides on WW2 fighters and bombers? I mean, aside from the Osprey books I still keep up with those. And I also have the Black Cross / Red Star series and Christopher Shores books but those are more about day to day operations.

I know these days online is often the best source, but I'd like to update my 'hard' library.

S

 

[Shortround6]

So what? The Mosquoito only carried 458 gallons and had a far better range than any of those. The P-51D only carried 186 gallons and it flew further than any of them. Part of the reason was a much higher cruise speed! You analysis here is crude, war isn't so simple - aeronautics aren't so simple..

Mosquito carried 646 US gallons and no the Mustang with 186 gallons of fuel did not fly further than the bombers. A Mustang with 160 gallons (allow something for warm up and take-off) could fly around 890 miles at 15,000ft at 290mph true. (no combat no reserve.)
A B-25C/D with 900 gallons (allowing 70 gallons for warm up and take off, neither plane needs quite that much) at 15,000ft can fly a mere 660 miles at 280mph true but that is at max continuous power which would never happen. Backing the plane down to an economical 247mph true the range jumps to 1110 miles (no combat, no reserves) You can get a B-25 to fly over 1500 miles while carrying 3000lbs using the wing tanks alone if you slow down enough.

You are quite right, war is not simple and aeronautics isn't so simple. But comparing the most aerodynamic piston engine fighter of WW II to not particularly aerodynamic radial engine bombers doesn't tell us much either does it?

More to the point, Hurricanes were doing most of the tactical bombing in the Med and the Pe 2 out-ranged those significantly.

Sort of is the point isn't it? Are you going to replace the Hurricanes with PE-2s or replace the A-20s and B-25s?
The Hurricanes were better strafers than the PE-2 and while the PE-2 carried more bombs (2-3 times) they required 3 times the aircrew, twice the fuel, twice the maintenance time for the engines.
The PE-2s needed less fuel than the A-20 and B-25 and less aircrew than the B-25 but it wasn't any better at strafing. Bomb load for most of 1942-43 was similar to the A-20 but you need 3 PE-2s to equal 2 B-25s at best. at worst it is closer to 3 to 1.

The PE-2 doesn't have the range or bomb load to really justify it's logistical footprint.

Well speed is a factor. It's not the only factor, but it's a factor. I suspect speed is the main reason why the Pe 2 had a much lower loss rate than an A-20 in Soviet use (or an Il2)

According to this, the rate of missions per loss was:

Su-2 80
Pe-2 54
IL-2 (two seat) 26
A-20 19
IL-2 (single seat) 13

(source)

https://www.worldcat.org/title/soviet-combat-aircraft-of-the-second-world-war/oclc/40494691

The figures could stand closer examination or perhaps expansion?

The figure for the SU-2 is for the 270th bomber regiment operating during the Stalingrad defensive operations in 1942. Aug 42 to Feb 43? Dates not given in book cited. there were only 889 SU-2/4s built before production stopped in March of 42. One wonders if the loss rate was truly that low in general and not for a small quantity of planes why production was discontinued?
Likewise the loss rate for the A-20 is for the 221th bomber regiment (or division)? using early models of the A-20. Timing is not easy to sort out. for instance
we have "By the end of July, the 221st's crews had flown 876 sorties, and claimed the destruction of 171 tanks and 617 trucks and automobiles (along with other important targets). However, during this time, the 221st suffered heavy losses, with 46 of their Havocs shot down in the same time period."
However the Russians were getting a mix of A-20Bs and A-20Cs at this time and the A-20Bs had no (or little) armor and did not have self-sealing fuel tanks. The A-20Cs did. I think we can all agree that a force of planes with all self-sealing tanks would have a lower loss rate. Also under 900 missions might not be enough to get a really good statistical base to work from?

I would also note that the same source claims that the PE-2s loss rate hit that number of 54 sorties per loss after the upper rear gun was changed from a single had operated 7.62 machine gun to a single hand operated 12.7mm machine gun. Before the change they had a loss rate of one plane per 20 sorties. Those are the numbers but do we really believe such a small change in armament could make that big a difference? The slower IL-2 didn't get that big a difference going from no gun at all (or even some body in back seat shouting a warning) to the same 12.7mm machine gun the PE-2 used.
Later A-20s replaced the twin .30 cal guns (compared to the single 7.62/.30cal in the early PE-2s) with a hand aimed .50 cal. SHould we assume that they also then achieved a loss rate 2 1/2 times lower than the older Bombers?

So given that the A-20 was a successful "light" bomber for the Desert Air Force in 1942 and 1943, that they had similar range and bomb loads, and given that the Pe-2 was (as a dive bomber) more accurate, and based on the above statistics - could survive almost three times as many missions in a row before being shot down. And it could carry rockets!... I think it's a safe bet that the Pe-2 would have been pretty useful in the Med.

Answered above, but please note the A-20Gs were coming into service at the end of 1943. if a single hand aimed 12.7mm/50cal can almost triple the survival rate what do a pair of such guns in a power turret do?

That is certainly one way to look at it, but I don't think it's the only way. You did a good job of articulating the essence of our disagreement though. "Bomb Truck" is basically how the US approached heavy bomber missions in WW2 and in the Korean War and Vietnam, with limited and diminishing effectiveness. But it's not just about tonnage and range - to me it is a very simplistic way to evaluate a bomber.

Range and bomb load matter, of course. But accuracy, speed, survivability, performance, and versatility also matter. There is more than one kind of bombing mission, there is more than one kind of target. There is more than one type of threat.

And more than one way to accomplish a mission.

Bomb load and range are not the only way to evaluate a bomber but they should be the basis or start of such an evaluation. Bringing in the later wars just confusing things as more and more the overriding consideration was the reduction in casualties of the bomber crews and the high command (and politicians) were much more willing to trade massive losses in effectiveness for few casualties for political reasons.

Versatility does matter but it can also be overstated. For example the P-38 fighter was versatile, but it's usefulness as a recon plane (and hundreds were built without guns and served as photo recon planes in all theaters) or as a substitute bomber (bomb under one wing drop tank under the other or the drop snoot experiment) have little bearing on it's usefulness as a fighter, however useful it may have been as an airframe/aircraft in general.
A lot of the desert war bombing was from low and not medium altitude with somewhat greater accuracy so the difference between the "level" dive bombers and the dive bombers should not be quite as great. I would note that all air forces over claimed considerably on ground targets, see above quote for the A-20 in Russian service, 171 tanks? It is quite possible that single German panzer division didn't even have 171 operable tanks in the summer of 1942.
You did mention "more than one kind of bombing mission, there is more than one kind of target." and while the PE-2 might be good at some it rather fails at others like attacking ports or flying from NA to Sicily or southern Italy.

I think the Pe-2 was easier to fly (and more maneuverable than the others), maybe you are thinking of the B-26? Pe-2 was qualified for acrobatics: loops, rolls, steep bank turns etc., according to that USAAF film you posted earlier, the A-20 wasn't rated for that. I know the B-26 wasn't!

do not confuse acrobatic ability with being easy to fly. The PE-2 had some rather nasty low speed characteristics. SOme of the Women pilots needed the assistance of the navigator/rear gunner helping to pull on the stick to get them off the ground at times. The wing section/airfoil while quite good for a dive bomber (little trim change needed over a large speed difference) stalled at about an 11 degree angle of attack and the stall was often sudden and asymmetrical.
The PE-2B of 1944 had a slightly larger wing of changed airfoil to improve take-off and landing performance and "lessened the tendency of the PE-2 to fall into a corkscrew at low speeds"

 

[wuzak]

I think it varies by type right? I got my figure from wikipedia.

Bomber types had 536 UKG.

The FB types may have had the number you used.

The PR types maybe had more.

But the bomber types are the only ones relevant for this discussion.

 

[Schweik]

Mosquito carried 646 US gallons and no the Mustang with 186 gallons of fuel did not fly further than the bombers. A Mustang with 160 gallons (allow something for warm up and take-off) could fly around 890 miles at 15,000ft at 290mph true. (no combat no reserve.)

Per this, 536 internal 657 gal with the bomb bay full of fuel - but that pretty much rules out a heavy bomb load right?

Per this B-25 had a combat radius of 625 miles with a normal (4,000 lb) bomb load and a (one way) combat range of 1325 miles. Not so great. Mosquito mk IV is 1620 / 2040 (or 1360/1720 at higher speed) with 2,000 lbs of bombs. Per this P-51D has a range of 920 miles with internal fuel / 1660 with drop tanks or 2190 with bigger drop tanks.

According to this, the Pe-2 had a 'typical' range of 817 miles, 1100 max (which would mean using the bomb-bay fuel tank, I suspect). It could still of course carry bombs externally as it usually did. As far as i can tell that out-ranges the B-25 and most of the others on the list in the poll.

You are quite right, war is not simple and aeronautics isn't so simple. But comparing the most aerodynamic piston engine fighter of WW II to not particularly aerodynamic radial engine bombers doesn't tell us much either does it?

Actually that is exactly what I'm talking about. The like the Mosquito, the Pe-2 is a more aerodynamic aircraft with in-line engines, which is why it's so much faster than a B-25. That is the main difference - smaller lighter more agile vs. bigger heavier and better armed. Each has it's pros and cons, but you are basically saying that the criteria that you like (bomb load and range) are the only ones that matter.

A bomber that hits 5% of it's targets with 4,000 lbs of bombs isn't as useful as a bomber that hits 20% of it's targets with 2,000 lbs. See Douglas Dauntless vs. TBD Devastator. An aircraft which loses half the squadron with every sortie (again, see TBD Devastator) isn't as useful as one which loses 5%. And so on.

Sort of is the point isn't it? Are you going to replace the Hurricanes with PE-2s or replace the A-20s and B-25s?

I think they could have done both. If the A-20 was useful, since the Pe-2 is similar but a little better, it may have actually been more useful. But of course that is just speculation.

The PE-2s needed less fuel than the A-20 and B-25 and less aircrew than the B-25 but it wasn't any better at strafing. Bomb load for most of 1942-43 was similar to the A-20 but you need 3 PE-2s to equal 2 B-25s at best. at worst it is closer to 3 to 1.

Not if the PE-2 is hitting twice as many targets with each sortie and suffering half the loss rate.

The figure for the SU-2 is for the 270th bomber regiment operating during the Stalingrad defensive operations in 19 (snip) SHould we assume that they also then achieved a loss rate 2 1/2 times lower than the older Bombers?

All very interesting but pure guesswork. From what I understand, Pe-2s were often flown at low altitude and therefore typically attacked from above (where a speed advantage from diving would help Bf 109s catch them more quickly) thus the main vulnerability was from above - and a 12.7mm gun does make a big difference there, since it has about the same range as the guns on the fighter.

Anecdotally I think the Pe-2s were just a bit faster and more agile which helped with their survivability, though even for those it wasn't that high.

Bomb load and range are not the only way to evaluate a bomber but they should be the basis or start of such an evaluation. Bringing in the later wars just confusing things as more and more the overriding consideration was the reduction in casualties of the bomber crews and the high command (and politicians) were much more willing to trade massive losses in effectiveness for few casualties for political reasons.

:Lol Wut? 8th AF and Bomber Command didn't take enough casualties!? how much is enough? To what point in the "later war years"?

You did mention "more than one kind of bombing mission, there is more than one kind of target." and while the PE-2 might be good at some it rather fails at others like attacking ports or flying from NA to Sicily or southern Italy.

Unless something is off in the range calculations I think it could reach Sicily, and the dive bombing capability it's quite useful against ships (B-25s and A-20s also good against ships). But certainly - some missions work better for 'bomb truck' type attacks and some for dive bombers. I specifically mentioned the Med / North Africa for the Pe-2 because they did so much tactical bombing.

As for the Hurricanes they should have replaced those with Yak-1Bs or Yak 7s

do not confuse acrobatic ability with being easy to fly. The PE-2 had some rather nasty low speed characteristics. SOme of the Women pilots needed the assistance of the

I'm well aware of the difference between handling and agility. The Pe-2 was a bit tricky on takeoff and landing, and not to be sexist but some of the women pilots were simply too small as people to fly an aircraft of that size - Pe 2 isn't the only aircraft in WW2 that would be hard to fly for a 120 lb person.

But from what I have read, the Pe-2 actually had good handling. So did the B-25 and A-20 to be fair. not so much the B-26 though I know some people get hot under the collar when you say that!

The Tl DR for me is while you have claimed categorically that the Pe-2 wouldn't have been worth the fuel to fly in the Med, but I don't think you made your case.

The numbers do not bear this up nor do the accounts. You can imply all kinds of things about the Soviet records but it's hard to get other than Russian stats on a Russian plane. More to the point, all the aspersions and Boris Badinov tropes aside, Russian records don't look any more or less trustworthy to me certainly than Nazi German records, and to be honest, no more than RAF or USAAF records either.

That is my $.02. Your mileage may vary,


S

 

[Dimlee]

Well speed is a factor. It's not the only factor, but it's a factor. I suspect speed is the main reason why the Pe 2 had a much lower loss rate than an A-20 in Soviet use (or an Il2)

According to this, the rate of missions per loss was:

Su-2 80
Pe-2 54
IL-2 (two seat) 26
A-20 19
IL-2 (single seat) 13

(source)

S

The source book was written by reputable authors. But it's just too old (1998-1999). I suspect that they took their numbers from the only official summary available in Soviet period. It was called (translated) "Soviet aviation in Great Patriotic War in numbers" and published in 1960s in limited quantity (less 100 copies allegedly) and remained classified until 1990s. Probably never translated but it can be found in Russian, for example:
ВВС в цифрах
ВОЕННАЯ ЛИТЕРАТУРА --[ Военная история ]-- Советская авиация в Великой Отечественной войне 1941-1945 гг. в цифрах (with link to archived version in Excel format).
There were two problems with Soviet summary documents: 1) Propaganda bias 2) Low quality of primary data.
While 1) is self explanatory, let me illustrate the 2) with this: according to loss tables in the above mentioned summary there were no losses of IL-4/DB-3 in 1941. None at all - despite tons of evidence of the contrary. Why so? The answer is simple: another document which was primary source for the loss table did not have breakdown by bomber type in the field "1941", just total number with small print "no data by aircraft type". Other years 1942-1945 were filled in correctly. So, negligence of some unknown clerk in statistics office led to errors in subsequent reports and to wrong assumptions in further books, articles, etc.

Back to the numbers of IL-2 missions per loss (2-seat). According to stats published in 2000s-2010s, 26 was average figure in 1942-1943. 1944-1945 figures were much higher, up to 85-90.

 

[Schweik]

The source book was written by reputable authors. But it's just too old (1998-1999). I suspect that they took their numbers from the only official summary available in Soviet period. It was called (translated) "Soviet aviation in Great Patriotic War in numbers" and published in 1960s in limited quantity (less 100 copies allegedly) and remained classified until 1990s. Probably never translated but it can be found in Russian, for example:
ВВС в цифрах
ВОЕННАЯ ЛИТЕРАТУРА --[ Военная история ]-- Советская авиация в Великой Отечественной войне 1941-1945 гг. в цифрах (with link to archived version in Excel format).
There were two problems with Soviet summary documents: 1) Propaganda bias 2) Low quality of primary data.
While 1) is self explanatory, let me illustrate the 2) with this: according to loss tables in the above mentioned summary there were no losses of IL-4/DB-3 in 1941. None at all - despite tons of evidence of the contrary. Why so? The answer is simple: another document which was primary source for the loss table did not have breakdown by bomber type in the field "1941", just total number with small print "no data by aircraft type". Other years 1942-1945 were filled in correctly. So, negligence of some unknown clerk in statistics office led to errors in subsequent reports and to wrong assumptions in further books, articles, etc.

Interesting but I can show you nearly identical errors in US War Department documents that you can find on WWII Aircraft Performance on aircraft like the P-40 and P-39 and so on.

Back to the numbers of IL-2 missions per loss (2-seat). According to stats published in 2000s-2010s, 26 was average figure in 1942-1943. 1944-1945 figures were much higher, up to 85-90.

Well that figures, by 1944 there were a lot more very good quality Russian fighters in the field, La 5FN, Yak-9 and (later in 1944) Yak-3, can provide good protection against an increasingly shaky and demoralized Luftwaffe (despite and in contradiction of all of their propaganda which hardly anyone ever seems to recognize as such).

S

 

[Greg Boeser]

But from what I have read, the Pe-2 actually had good handling. So did the B-25 and A-20 to be fair. not so much the B-26 though I know some people get hot under the collar when you say that!

HERETIC!!!

 

[Schweik]

Back to the numbers of IL-2 missions per loss (2-seat). According to stats published in 2000s-2010s, 26 was average figure in 1942-1943. 1944-1945 figures were much higher, up to 85-90.

Can you post the rest of the numbers? Whatever they've got?

S

 

[pbehn]

Surely some distinction must be made for the theatre of operation. Until after D-Day and bomber leaving the UK faced a radar guided integrated defence system with increasingly strong anti aircraft defences. There were comparatively few tactical targets within easy reach and the people living there were generally not the enemy, by contrast almost everything in the desert was put there by the military so if it wasn't "ours" it was "theirs".

 

[Schweik]

Surely some distinction must be made for the theatre of operation. Until after D-Day and bomber leaving the UK faced a radar guided integrated defence system with increasingly strong anti aircraft defences. There were comparatively few tactical targets within easy reach and the people living there were generally not the enemy, by contrast almost everything in the desert was put there by the military so if it wasn't "ours" it was "theirs".

True, I never said anything about operations in the English Channel. That is a pretty dangerous zone. But then so was Stalingrad...

S

 

[Dimlee]

About Su-2.

One wonders if the loss rate was truly that low in general and not for a small quantity of planes why production was discontinued?

This is interesting question. Su-2 vs IL-2 is good subject for another endless discussion.
In my very humble opinion, IL-2 was finally chosen due to those reasons:
1. More lobbying efforts of Ilyishin.
2. Logistical and other issues caused by evacuation of Kharkov factory which was main production site of Su-2.
3. Obsession of top brass with idea of "fully armoured flying tank" - IL-2 looked like the one, at least on paper.
Also, according to some evidence, Sukhoi has fallen in favour with Stalin in 1942. Sukhoi was given the offer to head Pe-2 development team after the death of Petlyakov but was reluctant to accept it.

 

[pbehn]

True, I never said anything about operations in the English Channel. That is a pretty dangerous zone. But then so was Stalingrad...

S

Schweik, it was a general comment, it may have followed a post of yours but it wasn't in answer to it. To me, as far as UK operations were concerned, once formations needed air escort and had to fly at a certain height to avoid flak you may as well use bombers carrying the biggest pay load possible.

 

[Schweik]

Schweik, it was a general comment, it may have followed a post of yours but it wasn't in answer to it. To me, as far as UK operations were concerned, once formations needed air escort and had to fly at a certain height to avoid flak you may as well use bombers carrying the biggest pay load possible.

yeah but Mosquitoes were still able to do precision raids in the ETO right?

 

[pbehn]

yeah but Mosquitoes were still able to do precision raids in the ETO right?

They did, but they also suffered quite high losses at times and most of the famous raids were not what anyone would consider a target before they were made. When a Mosquito made a precision raid it wasn't a medium bomber it generally carried 4 x 250 Kg bombs. The maximum bomb load was a 2,000kg "cookie" but that is basically a drum. The Halifax and Manchester (became the Lancaster) were originally ordered as "medium" bombers. If the Mosquito is called a "medium" and the Lancaster actually was ordered as a "medium" there is a 9 ton and 900% difference in bomb load. The maximum bomb load of a Typhoon and the normal conventional bomb load of a Mosquito were almost the same, the difference being the Mosquito's load was internal.

 

[Dimlee]

Can you post the rest of the numbers? Whatever they've got?

S

I wish I could. But they are all messy. There are two types of problems with IL-2 stats:
1. Period of data. Most of the sources mention full year (Jan-Dec), but some researchers argued that it was done on different basis: July to June (next year).
2. Incomplete raw data. For example, when figure 85 flights per loss in 1944 was mentioned in one article, critics said that that figure was based on Nov 1944 statistics only.
Loss figures are more or less known with some margin error due inclusion of IL-10 losses in 1945. Also production numbers are OK. But number of flights are still debatable, differences are in many thousands.

 

[Dimlee]

Interesting but I can show you nearly identical errors in US War Department documents that you can find on WWII Aircraft Performance on aircraft like the P-40 and P-39 and so on.

I have no doubt. Mistakes are found everywhere.
But please keep in mind that WWII history research in USSR was done only by few authorised institutions. No competition, no independent authors, no cooperation with foreign peers outside of Warsaw Pact block (and very limited within), virtually no possibility to cross check and compare sources and to correct mistakes done in official publications. And a lot of secrecy and classified data which began to open only in 1990s/early 2000s.

 

[Shortround6]

Per this, 536 internal 657 gal with the bomb bay full of fuel - but that pretty much rules out a heavy bomb load right?

Those are imperial gallons. Converting to US gallons to make comparison to US aircraft easier you get the 646 gallons I mentioned, your conversion may vary a gallon or two.

[QUOTEPer this B-25 had a combat radius of 625 miles with a normal (4,000 lb) bomb load and a (one way) combat range of 1325 miles. Not so great. Mosquito mk IV is 1620 / 2040 (or 1360/1720 at higher speed) with 2,000 lbs of bombs.[/QUOTE]

Please read your own sources a bit more carefully. That sheet gives ranges in Nautical Miles. Multiple times 1.15 =718 mile radius with 4000lb of bombs. One way is 1513 miles, all speeds on the chart are in kts, please multiply by 1.15.

This is also for a B-25J which was carrying TWELVE .50 cal machine guns and 1380lbs of ammo. And a 6 man crew. Granted this model was carrying 1137 US gallons of fuel all in protected tanks.

According to this, the Pe-2 had a 'typical' range of 817 miles, 1100 max (which would mean using the bomb-bay fuel tank, I suspect). It could still of course carry bombs externally as it usually did. As far as i can tell that out-ranges the B-25 and most of the others on the list in the poll.

Why don't you use good source instead of bouncing around to whatever one seems to support your position?
You quoted the loss rates from "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War" put it's performance numbers don't support you position so you find a website that will?

I would like to know on what world the 1513 mile range of the B-25J is out-ranged by the 1100 mile PE-2?

for a reality check on the PE-2 try comparing it to a Messerschmitt Bf 110F.
Wings within a few sq ft, Bf 110 has smaller fuselage, Is roughly the same weight (If the PE-2 is NOT carrying bombs) The Bf 110 has slightly more powerful engines and yet is slower?
or trying to compare to the P-38. A P-38L can do about 344mph at 12,500ft (340 at 10,000, 348 at 15,000) using 1100hp per engine. The engines in a PE-2FT were good for about 1180hp in that altitude band?

I also love how the carrying of external bombs does nothing to the range, best of both worlds?

Actually it does, and furthermore, that is exactly what I'm talking about. The like the Mosquito, the Pe-2 is a relatively thin profiled, relatively light, much more aerodynamic aircraft with in-line engines, which is one of the main reasons it's so much faster than a B-25. That is the chief design difference - smaller lighter more agile vs. bigger heavier and better armed, basically. Each has it's advantages and disadvantages, but you are basically saying that the criteria that you like (bomb load and range) are the only ones that matter. Well as far as i can tell B-25 actually loses out on range too but my point is that other factors like bombing accuracy and survivability matter just as much as bomb load. A bomber that hits 5% of it's targets with 4,000 lbs of bombs isn't as useful as a bomber that hits 20% of it's targets with 2,000 lbs. See Douglas Dauntless vs. TBD Devastator. An aircraft which loses half the squadron with every sortie (again, see TBD Devastator) isn't as useful as one which loses 5%. And so on.

Wrong on range by a large margin. I would also note that the PE-2, at least the early ones, did very little dive bombing. The Air brakes tended to stick in the
extended position leaving the plane rather vulnerable to German fighters.

I think they could have done both. If the A-20 was useful, since the Pe-2 is similar but a little better, it may have actually been more useful. But of course that is just speculation.
Not if the PE-2 is hitting twice as many targets with each sortie and suffering half the loss rate.

You have yet to prove the PE-2 was as good, let alone better, than the A-20 and you are using very suspect numbers as to bomb accuracy and loss rates as explained above.

:Lol Wut? 8th AF and Bomber Command didn't take enough casualties!? how much is enough? To what point in the "later war years"? To kill more civilians and destroy more centuries old buildings?

Try reading the passage again. I said " later wars " NOT "later war years" against your argument of bringing in Korea and Vietnam. Now you are trying to twist it?

The Tl DR for me is while you have claimed categorically that the Pe-2 was all-but-useless and wouldn't have been worth the fuel to fly in the Med, but I don't think you made your case.

Pot meet kettle. If you are going to use numbers that don't make sense and take very limited sample data and apply it to large numbers of aircraft then meeting in the middle gets very hard.