Best medium bomber of WWII?

[nuuumannn]

De Havilland Mosquito, to go along with the Mosquito fighter bomber, night fighter, photo recon... Sheer brilliance.

Favourites in the listed lot aside from the Mossie? Tupolev Tu-2: menacing looking machine with excellent performance, although appeared later in the war. Junkers Ju 88: classic Luftwaffe workhorse, a real jack of all trades, apparently nice to fly too. North American B-25: Three words - Doolittle Raid. Awesome.

 

[renrich]

B26-fast, heavily armed, decent bomb load, could be used as a torpedo plane and had the lowest attrition rate of any US AC in Europe.

 

[Kilkenny]

Ki-67 Hiryu... Way better than the B-25 or B-26 in almost every way... Almost as versatile as the Mosquito... I am surprised it didn't even make the list...

 

[SaparotRob]

B-25. How wrong can I be?
Already picked the Mosquito for a fighter survey a while back.

 

[pbehn]

What is in a name? The Lancaster and Halifax should have been medium bombers.

 

[SaparotRob]

What is in a name? The Lancaster and Halifax should have been medium bombers.

.. and with cooler names.

 

[Kilkenny]

B-25. How wrong can I be?
Already picked the Mosquito for a fighter survey a while back.

If one defines "best" to mean "impactful", then I absolutely, positively 100% agree with you! However, in most technical and operational aspects, the Ki-67 was superior (assuming an equal piloting skill level).

 

[Admiral Beez]

You're going too have to explain that "low stall speed improves bombing accuracy" statement.

How can a low stall speed do anything but improve bombing accuracy.

For example, imagine a Fairey Swordfish at low altitude against a U-Boat, with a 40 knot headwind, or equal to the Stringbag's stall speed. The Swordfish can essentially hover over the U-Boat and drop its bombs or depth charges with pinpoint accuracy. You can't do that if the stall speed was 200 knots, for example.

 

[tyrodtom]

While

How can a low stall speed do anything but improve bombing accuracy.

For example, imagine a Fairey Swordfish at low altitude against a U-Boat, with a 40 knot headwind, or equal to the Stringbag's stall speed. The Swordfish can essentially hover over the U-Boat and drop its bombs or depth charges with pinpoint accuracy. You can't do that if the stall speed was 200 knots, for example.

I don't think it would be a good idea approaching a U-boat on the surface at near stall speed'
They had AA, and you're presenting them with a easy target.
If they crash dived, and got under before you got there, your low speed is just giving them more time to get deeper, and maybe turn.

That's why the method was to approach as fast as possible, maybe get to them before they could get under, or at least catch them while they was still at a shallow depth.
I doubt anyone tried your slow approach , even in a Stringbag.

 

[Kilkenny]

How can a low stall speed do anything but improve bombing accuracy.

For example, imagine a Fairey Swordfish at low altitude against a U-Boat, with a 40 knot headwind, or equal to the Stringbag's stall speed. The Swordfish can essentially hover over the U-Boat and drop its bombs or depth charges with pinpoint accuracy. You can't do that if the stall speed was 200 knots, for example.

Aye Admiral!

 

[SaparotRob]

I just looked at the results so far. I'm surprised the G4M hasn't received any votes. I'm not a fan per se but it was a pretty effective bomber.

 

[Kilkenny]

I just looked at the results so far. I'm surprised the G4M hasn't received any votes. I'm not a fan per se but it was a pretty effective bomber.

If range is the overriding consideration, with early results/reputation considered, too. (Sorta like saying the Ju-87 Stuka was the best WW2 dive bomber.) The Ki-67 was better than the G4M in almost every other way.

 

[SaparotRob]

If range is the overriding consideration, with early results/reputation considered, too. (Sorta like saying the Ju-87 Stuka was the best WW2 dive bomber.) The Ki-67 was better than the G4M in almost every other way.

No argument. I'm just surprised that Betty is getting no love. I'm no expert but didn't the G4M accomplish more success than the Ki-67?

 

[Admiral Beez]

I just looked at the results so far. I'm surprised the G4M hasn't received any votes. I'm not a fan per se but it was a pretty effective bomber.

Not really. It's one day of fame was on Dec 10, 1941 against Force Z. After that the G4M was a failure, where its lack of protection turned it into a flaming deathtrap. The only trick the Betty has is range.

Mitsubishi G4M - Wikipedia

"On 8 August 1942, 23 IJNAF torpedo-carrying G4M1s attacked American ships at Lunga Point. 18 of the G4M1s were shot down. More than 100 G4M1s were lost at Guadalcanal (August to October 1942)."

Range permitting, swap out the IJN Bettys with Mosquitos or Beaufighters and more will make it their targets, and back.

 

[SaparotRob]

.. and now I know.

 

[SaparotRob]

But still, the Betty wasn't a flaming death trap until someone could field an effective air defense.
I'm trying to find information on a Japanese attack on U.S.S. Lexington on February 20(?),1942. Was it a G4M formation that got annihilated?

 

[Kilkenny]

No argument. I just surprised that Betty is getting no love. I'm no expert but didn't the G4M accomplish more success than the Ki-67?

Of course; but kinda like comparing the Spitfire II with the Spitfire IX. A lot of important, experienced Japanese officers (as well as aircrews) did in the "Flaming Betty".

 

[Dimlee]

Not on the list but good candidate - P1Y Ginga.
Bombload small in comparison with Allied a/c, but typical for Japanese bombers.

 

[Just Schmidt]

Not really. It's one day of fame was on Dec 10, 1941 against Force Z. After that the G4M was a failure, where its lack of protection turned it into a flaming deathtrap. The only trick the Betty has is range.
.

I don't want to claim the G4M is in the running for best medium bomber of the war (not that surprizing for an early war design), but claiming it was a 'failure' on all other days than the 10th of December 1941 seems a bit harsh.

However, as it was also forgotten or ignored recently in another thread, I find it worth mentioning that on that occasion it worked together with the G3M.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I suspect the B-25 would have performed well as a torpedo bomber. If ony we had aerial torpedoes worth carrying.

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

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