Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
.. and with cooler names.What is in a name? The Lancaster and Halifax should have been medium bombers.
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).B-25. How wrong can I be?
Already picked the Mosquito for a fighter survey a while back.
How can a low stall speed do anything but improve bombing accuracy.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.
Aye Admiral!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.
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.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.
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?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.
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 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.
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".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?
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 agree, given the right torpedoes the Mitchell will be deadly, especially with a dozen .50 in the nose suppressing the target's AA.I suspect the B-25 would have performed well as a torpedo bomber. If ony we had aerial torpedoes worth carrying.