Best medium bomber of WWII?

ClayO · Jan 7, 2022

MiTasol said:
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.

You may have seen the documentary "Let There Be Light" which shows interviews with sufferers of PTSD who are being treated after the war. It's remarkable for its straight portrayal of the men, without casting aspersions on their "moral fiber." (Of course this wouldn't be permitted today due to HIPAA rules - the original version even included the mens' names.) It's hard to watch the whole thing, especially if your family was personally touched, but it does offer a measure of hope if you stick with it.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 7, 2022

tomo pauk said:
Doh. Any insight on why michaelmaltby was banned?

In another thread he continued to post political comments and mock a moderator after being warned several times to stop.

tomo pauk · Jan 7, 2022

FLYBOYJ said:
In another thread he continued to post political comments and mock a moderator after being warned several times to stop.

Politics - triple damned thing.

Admiral Beez · Jan 7, 2022

ShVAK said:
Choose yours!

Boulton Paul Overstrand and the Vickers Valentia. The latter fought on to 1944. Not bad for a biplane.

Acheron · Jan 7, 2022

FLYBOYJ said:
In another thread he continued to post political comments and mock a moderator after being warned several times to stop.

Bullying a Dragon - TV Tropes

See that guy over there? The one that can make Your Head A-Splode with his Psychic Powers? What a weirdo. Let's throw rocks at him! This is the fate-tempting and suicidal tendency of characters to bully, persecute or otherwise provoke people or …

tvtropes.org

Back on topic, I understand the B-25 was considerably easier and forgiving to fly, right? But wasn't the B-26 considerably faster? Heard claims that the B-26 had a decently low loss-ratio, and I wonder if extra speed is worthwhile when there is AAA shooting at you.

tomo pauk · Jan 7, 2022

Acheron said:
Back on topic, I understand the B-25 was considerably easier and forgiving to fly, right? But wasn't the B-26 considerably faster? Heard claims that the B-26 had a decently low loss-ratio, and I wonder if extra speed is worthwhile when there is AAA shooting at you.

The early B-26s were pretty fast on low altitudes. Later models were slower due to the greater drag (bigger wing, wing incidence was increased, engine air intakes grew bigger, many guns were added...), not able to do 300 mph. Despite some engine power increase. B-25 was just a tad slower.
The low sortie/loss ratio for the B-26s was achieved once the Allies established air superiority over NW Europe, with B-26s not venturing too deep - talk to the Ardenes max?

AA gunners never liked a fast target. However, the B-26 was not fast to begin with, so the gunners stood a fair chance to hit it.

XBe02Drvr · Jan 7, 2022

Acheron said:
Back on topic, I understand the B-25 was considerably easier and forgiving to fly, right? But wasn't the B-26 considerably faster? Heard claims that the B-26 had a decently low loss-ratio, and I wonder if extra speed is worthwhile when there is AAA shooting at you.

Depends on the circumstances. The early "no visible means of support" Marauders (Midway vintage) were gofast muthas and slippery bastards with high accident rates. The later tamed down safer to fly versions were fast, but not as overwhelmingly fast relative to the Mitchell.
In a conventional bombing raid and interceptor evasion scenario, speed is valuable, as witness the Marauder's survival rate over Fortress Europe. When it comes to a gun nose equipped torpedo or skip-bomb attack on a ship the advantage of speed isn't quite so clear-cut. Too much speed can defeat a torpedo or skip-bomb drop and firing platform stability under the recoil of all that firepower is more critical than the exposure time to AA fire from the target. Even a "tame" Marauder is more squirrelly than a Mitchell.

Shortround6 · Jan 7, 2022

The very early B-25s and B-26s were good for a bit below 320 and bit 320 above respectively But the fast B-25s didn't even have a top turret so they disappeared pretty quickly.

Part of the B-26 was part illusion. to get the early ones up to close to 320mph you had a single tail gun (not that many of those were made)AND the gross weight was so low they weren't carrying much for bombs and they certainly weren't carrying much for fuel. Some of the performance figures were for 26,734lbs but normal gross weight was 28,706lbs. The "normal" gross weight included only 465 gal of fuel and only 2000lbs of bombs. The plane, even an early one, would hold over 900 gallons of fuel and/or 4000lb to 5200lbs of bombs.
Something else to watch out for was that the early B-26 only held 5 crew members, include a pilot and co-pilot but they had 4 gun stations. Basically you had the the guy manning the turret also trying to use the .30 cal ventral tunnel gun. That or you had the pilot and co-pilot in the cockpit, the navigator/bomb aimer in the nose (with a .30 cal gun) and the radio operator behind the cockpit and separated from the guns behind the bomb bay by the bomb bay leaving one man to man the turret, man the tail gun (or two tail guns) and the .30 cal tunnel gun.
eventually the crew of the B-26 would reach 7 men (on occasion 8?)

As Tomo has said, some of the drag came from bigger oil coolers, much larger air intakes for the carbs (with sand/dirt filters) removal of prop spinners long before the wing got bigger and/or tilted.

There weren't that many of the "fast" B-26s made.
For the B-25s, one they had a top turret, getting over 300mph was going to be pretty rare (downhill, tailwind).

Greg Boeser · Jan 7, 2022

The early B-26s served in the Pacific with the 22nd BG in Australia/ New Guinea and with the 28th Composite Group in Alaska. The 22nd flew with seven man crews. The 28th began with seven man crews, but later dispensed with the gunners as there was virtually no aerial opposion in the Aleutians.
The Japanese found the early B-26s very difficult to intercept, requesting special interceptors to guard Rabaul,as the Zeroes had difficulty overtaking the Marauders in a tail chase, and found the rearward facing armament to be a challenge. It should be noted that the 3rd BG, equipped with early B-25Cs did not have the range to attack Rabaul, and suffered much greater losses at the hands of the Japanese fighters than did the 22nd's B-26s. Ten B-25s were shot down by the Tainan Kokutai between April and November 1942, compared to five B-26s.

Admiral Beez · Jan 8, 2022

Greg Boeser said:
The early B-26s served in the Pacific with the 22nd BG in Australia/ New Guinea and with the 28th Composite Group in Alaska. The 22nd flew with seven man crews. The 28th began with seven man crews, but later dispensed with the gunners as there was virtually no aerial opposion in the Aleutians.
The Japanese found the early B-26s very difficult to intercept, requesting special interceptors to guard Rabaul,as the Zeroes had difficulty overtaking the Marauders in a tail chase, and found the rearward facing armament to be a challenge. It should be noted that the 3rd BG, equipped with early B-25Cs did not have the range to attack Rabaul, and suffered much greater losses at the hands of the Japanese fighters than did the 22nd's B-26s. Ten B-25s were shot down by the Tainan Kokutai between April and November 1942, compared to five B-26s.

Imagine the Battle of Midway if the four torpedo-armed B-26 sent out on on 4 June 1942 had just a little more luck. For starters, have two of them score torpedo hits, and that final one succeed in its suicidal collision with Akagi's bridge, killing Nagumo and his staff. Of course Nagumo's decisions were an important part of the American victory, so perhaps it's for the best. Still, you have to like the B-26, fast, tough and well armed, the polar opposite of the IJN's fast yet in incendiary eggshell twin engine torpedo bombers.

glennasher · Jan 8, 2022

About 40 years ago, I knew a guy who was a gunner in B-25s in the SWPA during the war. He told me that the B-25 was awfully hard for a Zero to catch after they'd unloaded their bombs on Rabaul and headed "downhill". He'd made several trips over Rabaul in the B-25s, and loved them unconditionally. Bob was a heckuva character, but I had no reason not to believe him. He did mention that until they'd unloaded their ordnance, it was pretty dicey, but once those bombs were gone, they didn't have much trouble getting away from the Japanese aircraft.

Admiral Beez · Jan 8, 2022

glennasher said:
About 40 years ago, I knew a guy who was a gunner in B-25s in the SWPA during the war. He told me that the B-25 was awfully hard for a Zero to catch after they'd unloaded their bombs on Rabaul and headed "downhill". He'd made several trips over Rabaul in the B-25s, and loved them unconditionally. Bob was a heckuva character, but I had no reason not to believe him. He did mention that until they'd unloaded their ordnance, it was pretty dicey, but once those bombs were gone, they didn't have much trouble getting away from the Japanese aircraft.

It's noteworthy just how slow the late war A6M5 was at 350 mph top speed. By this time the USN and RN were flying 390 to >400 mph Hellcats and Corsairs.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 8, 2022

Wen I was in A&P school I had an instructor who flew B-25s as well. I believe he was in the Pacific, didn't talk too much about his war time experiences but I do remember him saying that once the B-25 let loose it's bomb load, it was pretty fast.

Shortround6 · Jan 8, 2022

The thing with some of the US bombers was that their engines were designed for low attitude flight.
The Early B-26 I referenced above gave it's best speed at 14,500ft and it was in high gear. Engine was good for about 1450hp.
In low gear the engine was good for 1850hp according to P&W but that was only good for around 2500-3000ft and a bit less in tropical conditions.
The bombers could run pretty quick at low altitude compared to some of the Japanese fighters. The Japanese fighters may have had more speed higher up.

Greg Boeser · Jan 8, 2022

glennasher said:
About 40 years ago, I knew a guy who was a gunner in B-25s in the SWPA during the war. He told me that the B-25 was awfully hard for a Zero to catch after they'd unloaded their bombs on Rabaul and headed "downhill". He'd made several trips over Rabaul in the B-25s, and loved them unconditionally. Bob was a heckuva character, but I had no reason not to believe him. He did mention that until they'd unloaded their ordnance, it was pretty dicey, but once those bombs were gone, they didn't have much trouble getting away from the Japanese aircraft.

That was a pretty typical egress technique. Bomb from the land side then dive to sea level on the way out. Had the added advantage that you could use the background to mask your approach. B-26s in particular were known for their acceleration in a dive. "They had the glide characteristics of a piano."
Early B-25s lacked adequate rear defense until they were field modified with a .30 or .50 out the tail. The Bendix bottom turret was considered almost worthless. These were mostly removed and replaced by a jettisonible fuel tank to increase range.

Thumpalumpacus · Jan 8, 2022

Admiral Beez said:
Imagine the Battle of Midway if the four torpedo-armed B-26 sent out on on 4 June 1942 had just a little more luck. For starters, have two of them score torpedo hits, and that final one succeed in its suicidal collision with Akagi's bridge, killing Nagumo and his staff. Of course Nagumo's decisions were an important part of the American victory, so perhaps it's for the best. Still, you have to like the B-26, fast, tough and well armed, the polar opposite of the IJN's fast yet in incendiary eggshell twin engine torpedo bombers.

For all the slagging it got for its high landing-speed and the "Baltimore Whore" stuff, iirc the -26 ended the war with the lowest loss-rate of mass-produced American bombers. It was certainly an effective weapon once it found its roles right. One of the best of the war in medium-altitude medium-bombing roles.

33k in the air · Jan 8, 2022

Admiral Beez said:
Imagine the Battle of Midway if the four torpedo-armed B-26 sent out on on 4 June 1942 had just a little more luck. For starters, have two of them score torpedo hits, and that final one succeed in its suicidal collision with Akagi's bridge, killing Nagumo and his staff.

The near-collision story is probably an exaggeration. Shattered Sword authors Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully mention this at 1:35:36 in this YouTube video discussing the battle.

GrauGeist · Jan 8, 2022

33k in the air said:
The near-collision story is probably an exaggeration. Shattered Sword authors Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully mention this at 1:35:36 in this YouTube video discussing the battle.

1Lt. Muir, pilot of the B-26 "Suzy-Q" verified that one of the two B-26s behind him, narrowly missed the superstructure as he was flying down the Akagi's deck.

33k in the air · Jan 8, 2022

GrauGeist said:
1Lt. Muir, pilot of the B-26 "Suzy-Q" verified that one of the two B-26s behind him, narrowly missed the superstructure as he was flying down the Akagi's deck.

How does the pilot in the front of a B-26 see what's going on behind him? Does the plane missing the superstructure do so in front of him, in which wouldn't it have nearly collided with his own aircraft? Or is the near collision taking place at a different carrier than Akagi?

FLYBOYJ · Jan 8, 2022

33k in the air said:
How does the pilot in the front of a B-26 see what's going on behind him? Does the plane missing the superstructure do so in front of him, in which wouldn't it have nearly collided with his own aircraft? Or is the near collision taking place at a different carrier than Akagi?

I'm sure if he (1Lt. Muir) didn't see it, one of his crew members did, and I would also guess that this was mentioned in the de-brief. I remember seeing this mentioned during a documentary and I think one or more of the participants were interviewed.

Best medium bomber of WWII?

Favorite WWII medium/tactical bomber?

Dornier Do 217

Heinkel He 111

Junkers Ju 88

Douglas A-26 Invader

Martin B-26 Marauder

North American B-25 Mitchell

Douglas A-20 Havoc/Boston

Mitsubishi G4M "Betty"

de Havilland Mosquito

Vickers Wellington

Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Sparviero

Tupolev Tu-2

Other

Airman 1st Class

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Airman 1st Class

Creator of Interesting Threads

2nd Lieutenant

Major General

2nd Lieutenant

Major

Senior Airman

Major

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major General

2nd Lieutenant

Major

Staff Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Staff Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads