Best medium bomber of WWII?

[fastmongrel]

How do we know people from earlier centuries coped better with PTSD. Has anyone met a survivor of a pre 1900 war or disaster. Don't project your modern prejudices or preconceptions onto people who are long dead and might have suffered in ways we cannot comprehend.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that as long as Homo sapiens have existed they have felt and suffered much as we 21st century people do. You only have to look at the incredibly complex funerary rites of the Neolithic and Bronze age periods to see how death was a very important and meaningful thing.

Earlier than 10,000 years it's harder to find evidence of people grieving and caring but it's there if only in the way skeletal remains have been found of people who were elderly and disabled who couldn't have survived long without being fed, housed and clothed by others.

Many of the Great Apes show the same reactions to death, stress, conflict and infirmity as we do. Not to mention animals not related to us like Elephants and Dolphins.

 

[michaelmaltby]

... the Chinese word for what ails us in the West .... baizuo

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't remember if I mentioned it, but I selected the A-26 for my choice of best. High speed, good payload, fairly maneuverable, and the interchangeable nose allowed for different mission capabilities to be adopted in the field.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The strategic bombers and fighters get more attention but overall considering all the important roles they were involved in I think medium bombers were my favorite aircraft class of WWII.

Why were no Japanese airforce bombers listed?

 

[Shortround6]

Why were no Japanese airforce bombers listed?

Because they weren't very good?

 

[ThomasP]

Mitsubishi G4M "Betty" is on the list.

 

[GrauGeist]

Why were no Japanese airforce bombers listed?

Because no one likes the IJA's KI-48 - they're all about the IJN's G4M.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Because no one likes the IJA's KI-48 - they're all about the IJN's G4M.

To be fair, isn't the Kawasaki Ki-48 with its 800 kg bomb load and three mgs considered a light bomber? To me the ubiquitous IJAF medium bomber was the Mitsubishi Ki-21, even though it was designated as a heavy bomber. The Nakajima Ki-49 also deserves mention.

 

[Shortround6]

To be fair the Japanese bombers, in general, sacrificed bombload and protection for range.
This worked, to some extent, in China where the opposition wasn't very good but still good enough that the Japanese realized they needed to escort bombers with long range fighters.

The Japanese seemed to be a step behind. many of their bombers did get protection, but in mid 1942 or after. Just ahead of the Allies introducing new fighters but origin of the better protection was from China.

There may be a language problem or a problem in terminology. Open to correction here but Japanese may have categorized their bombers as either light or heavy without having an official "medium class".
Japanese gun armament also wasn't very good. Again they were a step behind. 3-6 rifle caliber machine guns (or hand full of RCMGs and one bigger gun) might have been OK (it really wasn't, but the other nations learned) in 1940, in 1942 it was pathetic.

Later Japanese aircraft were still behind the curve.
The P1Y Ginga of 1944 for example was very long ranged, but it wasn't much faster than an A-20 of 1942/42 and only had a single 13mm machine gun defending the rear of the bomber.
So it was fast, but not fast enough.
It had poor defensive armament (worse than slower TBD)
The way the Japanese loaded it, a 1000kg load, wasn't very good by 1943.44 standards. Perhaps they could have traded fuel for bombs but the Japanese never seemed to size the bomb bays or add underwing racks to do that, correction welcome.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Mitsubishi G4M "Betty" is on the list.

Okay. But I wasn't asking about Japanese navy bombers.

Why were no Japanese airforce bombers listed?

 

[msxyz]

Mitsubishi Ki-67 was rather good: fast, protected, agile (a night fighter version was planned). The P1Y is also worth of mentioning. Both arrived too late and in too small numbers.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Admiral Beez,

re "Okay. But I wasn't asking about Japanese navy bombers."

Sorry, I am used to the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service (IJAAS) being referred to as the Japanese Army Air Force, and the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service (IJNAS) as the Japanese Navy or Naval Air Force. Your use of just "air force" made me think in general terms of both services.

 

[Shortround6]

Mitsubishi Ki-67 was rather good: fast, protected, agile (a night fighter version was planned). The P1Y is also worth of mentioning. Both arrived too late and in too small numbers.

P1Y mentioned above.
Ki-67?

From Wiki.
Ki-67-Ib

• Crew: 6–8
• Wing area: 65.85 m2 (708.8 sq ft)
• Empty weight: 8,649 kg (19,068 lb)
• Gross weight: 13,765 kg (30,347 lb)
• Powerplant: 2 × Mitsubishi Ha104 ("Army Type 4 1,900hp Air Cooled Radial") 18-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, 1,400 kW (1,900 hp) each for take-off

1,350 kW (1,810 hp) at 2,200 m (7,200 ft)1,201 kW (1,610 hp) at 8,300 m (27,200 ft)

Performance

• Maximum speed: 537 km/h (334 mph, 290 kn) at 6,090 m (19,980 ft)
• Cruise speed: 400 km/h (250 mph, 220 kn) at 8,000 m (26,000 ft)
• Range: 2,800 km (1,700 mi, 1,500 nmi)
• Ferry range: 3,800 km (2,400 mi, 2,100 nmi)
• Service ceiling: 9,470 m (31,070 ft)
• Time to altitude: 6,000 m (20,000 ft) in 14 minutes 30 seconds

Armament

• Guns:
  • 1 × 20 mm (0.79 in) Ho-5 cannon in dorsal turret
  • 5 × 12.7 mm (.50in) Ho-103 (Type 1) machine guns, one in nose, 1 in the tail, and 1 in each beam position (late models); Early models carried magazine-fed 7.7 mm (.303in) Type 89 machine guns in the beam positions.
• Bombs: 800 kg (1,764 lb) of bombs in internal bay or one torpedo, Kamikaze versions carried 2,900 kg (6,400 lb) of bombs

Very good range, but for 1944 the speed isn't good enough to give a lot of protection against interception. They were not facing Wildcats and P-40s anymore. F4Us, F6Fs, P-38s and P-47s might have a time with a long chase if spotted soon enough but a nearly 60mph speed advantage can eat up a 5 mile head start fairly quickly. Bomb load for 1944 isn't great by any means. Gun armament is light by US standards but not bad compared to some other nations.
B-25C/Ds with field mods had one .50 in the nose (and one or two fixed) two .50s in a power turret on top, one .50 in the tail and one .50 out each side (belly turret removed) and that was in late 1942/early 1943.
I am not real impressed that the Japanese roughly equaled that 1 1/2 years later with about 2/3rds the bombload.

 

[WARSPITER]

I suppose you have to look at how the Japanese twins stack up in 1944 against the 1944 versions of the two highest vote pullers in the poll.

Not really there especially considering the difference in time of first use.

 

[GreenKnight121]

PTSD has always been around. We just hear about it more today.

Just one more on the digression topic...

USMC 8-year NON-combat vet here ('81-'89) - I have known a number of people with what is now called PTSD.


One was my maternal grandfather - he saw combat in WW1 with the US AEF in France - he was in hospital with lung injuries from gas on Armistice Day.

He also had bad experiences before the war running a trapline in Minnesota - those PETA imbeciles that claim wolves don't attack humans need to go live in the North Woods unarmed for a couple of years.

My grandmother regularly slept in a different bedroom, as he would often suddenly begin hand-to-hand combat with either Germans or wolves in his sleep.


As for the question of "Why so many now", part of it lies in the simple pace of warfare now compared to previously... my Father's oldest brother saw combat in France & Germany in '44-'45 - but didn't make it back stateside until 1946.

That time, still in the military, working beside your combat buddies on peaceful things, gave a lot of time for buddies to help each other learn how to cope with their trauma, and to re-acclimate to peacetime existence. Additionally, they often exchanged their contact info, and while many did not stay in touch after returning to the US, quite a number did maintain contact with at least one of their unit - and talked about things.

In Vietnam, you could be in a firefight one moment, and be stateside in civvies with your DD-214 72 hours later! No decompression, no re-acclimatization, no "talking things out with your buddies", and no way to get back in touch as you had no time to do so when your NCO popped his head into your hooch and said "Hey ____, grab your shit - your truck to the Freedom Bird leaves in half an hour"!

It is a bit better now - but the combat>civvies time is still in weeks, not months.


Another difference is relative ages... in Vietnam the official "average age" of US servicemen was 19 - a crapload of 18-19 year olds with a small scattering of mid-20s or older people - mostly too senior to talk to candidly.

In WW1, WW2, and Korea you had a significant number of either veterans of the previous war or older men (holding lower ranks) who had been drafted or who had enlisted willingly (the draft did call up more than just fresh high school graduates back then), and those men tended to be more stable, mature, and with life experiences that helped them to cope with stress (some were married, some even with children) - and to help the "kids" in their unit learn how to do the same.

Even with that, as many have related earlier in this discussion, there were a lot who had long-term problems that we would now diagnose and treat, but which back then was pushed into the shadows of their minds.

Our current-day all-volunteer force has a good percentage of older experienced personnel... but still has a lot of institutional problems with dealing with those still on active duty who are having problems coping - nearly all of the effective treatment comes after they get their discharges.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let's not forget Lavochkin, who was saved from the "Stalin Flu" by the nose of a Su-2.
Then there was Kalinin, who did get the "Stalin Flu"...

Solzhenitsyn goes into depth on sharashkas in a couple of his books.

 

[MiTasol]

I agree, given the right torpedoes the Mitchell will be deadly, especially with a dozen .50 in the nose suppressing the target's AA.

View attachment 610626

View attachment 628661

View attachment 610627

What other medium bomber packed this much forward firepower outside of a night fighter conversion? Mosquito with its 4x20mm and 4x.303 perhaps.

14
The top turret has two and can fire forward as well

They would have needed folding bomb doors like the Beaufort tho.

 

[MiTasol]

Just one more on the digression topic...

USMC 8-year NON-combat vet here ('81-'89) - I have known a number of people with what is now called PTSD.


One was my maternal grandfather - he saw combat in WW1 with the US AEF in France - he was in hospital with lung injuries from gas on Armistice Day.

He also had bad experiences before the war running a trapline in Minnesota - those PETA imbeciles that claim wolves don't attack humans need to go live in the North Woods unarmed for a couple of years.

My grandmother regularly slept in a different bedroom, as he would often suddenly begin hand-to-hand combat with either Germans or wolves in his sleep.


As for the question of "Why so many now", part of it lies in the simple pace of warfare now compared to previously... my Father's oldest brother saw combat in France & Germany in '44-'45 - but didn't make it back stateside until 1946.

That time, still in the military, working beside your combat buddies on peaceful things, gave a lot of time for buddies to help each other learn how to cope with their trauma, and to re-acclimate to peacetime existence. Additionally, they often exchanged their contact info, and while many did not stay in touch after returning to the US, quite a number did maintain contact with at least one of their unit - and talked about things.

In Vietnam, you could be in a firefight one moment, and be stateside in civvies with your DD-214 72 hours later! No decompression, no re-acclimatization, no "talking things out with your buddies", and no way to get back in touch as you had no time to do so when your NCO popped his head into your hooch and said "Hey ____, grab your shit - your truck to the Freedom Bird leaves in half an hour"!

It is a bit better now - but the combat>civvies time is still in weeks, not months.


Another difference is relative ages... in Vietnam the official "average age" of US servicemen was 19 - a crapload of 18-19 year olds with a small scattering of mid-20s or older people - mostly too senior to talk to candidly.

In WW1, WW2, and Korea you had a significant number of either veterans of the previous war or older men (holding lower ranks) who had been drafted or who had enlisted willingly (the draft did call up more than just fresh high school graduates back then), and those men tended to be more stable, mature, and with life experiences that helped them to cope with stress (some were married, some even with children) - and to help the "kids" in their unit learn how to do the same.

Even with that, as many have related earlier in this discussion, there were a lot who had long-term problems that we would now diagnose and treat, but which back then was pushed into the shadows of their minds.

Our current-day all-volunteer force has a good percentage of older experienced personnel... but still has a lot of institutional problems with dealing with those still on active duty who are having problems coping - nearly all of the effective treatment comes after they get their discharges.

It was also considered cowardice so no one was willing to admit to it.

In WW2 in the RAF it was called lack of moral fibre and you were sent straight to the nearest funny farm and got nothing but contempt for being a coward so that really sent you nuts.

I would strongly recommend you read an excellent book with a very crappy title (The Last Torpedo Flyers: The True Story of Arthur Aldridge, Hero of the Skies) BookFinder.com: New & Used Books, Rare Books, Textbooks, Out of Print because it covers the issue and why it came about on multiple occasions - some of the things those poor buggers experienced will blow your mind.

I was given the book many years ago when it was first published and, because of the title, only read it for the first time early last year. It is a warts and all history of one Beaufort torpedo bombing crews experiences in ww2 including how the Beauforts were bombed from above by other RAF aircraft while trying to torpedo their targets during the German channel dash, how one pilot had to land gear up on a jammed on live torpedo as he had injured on board who could not parachute, how one crew managed to get their aircraft home and safe after the pilot went totally bonkers on the wrong side of the channel, how the turret gunners modified their turrets etc.

Although the pilot is named in the title all the remaining crew were involved in writing this book.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Just one more on the digression topic...

USMC 8-year NON-combat vet here ('81-'89) - I have known a number of people with what is now called PTSD.


One was my maternal grandfather - he saw combat in WW1 with the US AEF in France - he was in hospital with lung injuries from gas on Armistice Day.

He also had bad experiences before the war running a trapline in Minnesota - those PETA imbeciles that claim wolves don't attack humans need to go live in the North Woods unarmed for a couple of years.

My grandmother regularly slept in a different bedroom, as he would often suddenly begin hand-to-hand combat with either Germans or wolves in his sleep.


As for the question of "Why so many now", part of it lies in the simple pace of warfare now compared to previously... my Father's oldest brother saw combat in France & Germany in '44-'45 - but didn't make it back stateside until 1946.

That time, still in the military, working beside your combat buddies on peaceful things, gave a lot of time for buddies to help each other learn how to cope with their trauma, and to re-acclimate to peacetime existence. Additionally, they often exchanged their contact info, and while many did not stay in touch after returning to the US, quite a number did maintain contact with at least one of their unit - and talked about things.

In Vietnam, you could be in a firefight one moment, and be stateside in civvies with your DD-214 72 hours later! No decompression, no re-acclimatization, no "talking things out with your buddies", and no way to get back in touch as you had no time to do so when your NCO popped his head into your hooch and said "Hey ____, grab your shit - your truck to the Freedom Bird leaves in half an hour"!

It is a bit better now - but the combat>civvies time is still in weeks, not months.


Another difference is relative ages... in Vietnam the official "average age" of US servicemen was 19 - a crapload of 18-19 year olds with a small scattering of mid-20s or older people - mostly too senior to talk to candidly.

In WW1, WW2, and Korea you had a significant number of either veterans of the previous war or older men (holding lower ranks) who had been drafted or who had enlisted willingly (the draft did call up more than just fresh high school graduates back then), and those men tended to be more stable, mature, and with life experiences that helped them to cope with stress (some were married, some even with children) - and to help the "kids" in their unit learn how to do the same.

Even with that, as many have related earlier in this discussion, there were a lot who had long-term problems that we would now diagnose and treat, but which back then was pushed into the shadows of their minds.

Our current-day all-volunteer force has a good percentage of older experienced personnel... but still has a lot of institutional problems with dealing with those still on active duty who are having problems coping - nearly all of the effective treatment comes after they get their discharges.

Excellent information, thank you.

 

[tomo pauk]

Doh. Any insight on why michaelmaltby was banned?