Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What if it has a gun-nose and carries 4,000 lbs of bombs? What if the gun nose is made modular so you can swap it out in the field for a bombardier nose?
My point was it's a role not a function. A B25 with a battery of guns in the nose is carrying out light and tactical roles. A B25 with a glass nose, a bomb sight plus operator at 10,000 feet is carrying out a medium role.
I suggested the rule (I did say it was arbitrary and capricious) to try and stop people suggesting anything capable of lifting a bomb. After all a P47 and a Typhoon are getting towards pre war medium bomber numbers.
For the PE-2 the bomb load was 600kg internal. Six 100kg bombs, two of which were the engine nacelles.
The 1000 kg load was external, four 250 kg bombs or two 500kg bombs
At which point speedand range depart from most published numbers.
The Ki-48 and Ki-49 were also supposed to be highly agile, as was the Maryland and the Lockheed Hudson which survived some duels with A6M. Any other highly agile light or medium bombers I missed?
B7A? I just love this "Japanisch Stuka".
"Three B7A2s were captured at Kisarazu, in Chiba Prefecture, by US forces following the occupation of Japan and shipped to the US. One was sent to "Pax River" for evaluation by the US Navy and the remaining two were assigned to the USAAF. Flight testing revealed that the "Grace" possessed the handling and performance qualities of a fighter, being faster and more maneuverable than the A6M5c Zero-sen."
In 2 engine department, two remarkable aircraft:
P1Y1
"FE 1702 (construction number 8923) was restored to airworthiness and flown by the USAAF's Flight Test Section at Middletown from February through to July 1946. The flight revealed that the "Frances" was capable of a top speed of 340mph at an altitude of 19,400ft and was very maneuverable."
Ki-67
"Flight testing of one of the Ki-67-Is at Middletown by the USAAF revealed that the "Peggy" was faster than US medium bombers of the day, including the B-25 Mitchell and B-26 Marauder, with a top speed of 334mph. It also proved to be highly maneuverable, as IJAAF service trials pilots had discovered in 1942–43."
(All quotations are from this book: Chambers, Mark. Wings of the Rising Sun (p. 256). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition. )
The Mosquito for me as the concept was the way of the future (unarmed fast bomber).
The K-48, which looked almost exactly like a Hampden, was also quite fast, 314 mph, had armor unlike most Japanese bombers, had excellent handling, and very good range (1,500 miles). Very small bomb load of 1700 lbs / 800 kg and lightly armed, and it just seemed not to be made in very large numbers.
The Ki-49 was also fast (306 mph) and like the Ki-48, had armor and self sealing tanks (the Japanese Army seemed to figure out the need for this faster than the Navy). Power to mass (0.21) and wind loading (31 lbs) were better than most fighters. Bomb load was slightly better than the Ki-49 (2200 lbs / 1000 kg) and it was fairly heavily armed. They proved to be fairly vulnerable to P-40s though and not many were made (they were made through the war but production seemed to be at a very slow pace). I still think it was a good design with a lot of potential.
-
One more thing I wanted to add, the G4M "Betty" did not have a single flash in the pan with the sinking of the Repulse and the Prince of Wales, they continued to harass Allies air bases around Port Moresby and in the Solomons and were part of the ongoing raids against Darwin, taking good advantage of their relatively high altitude performance and excellent range to continue to plague the Allies with strike after strike. I don't think you could call them a failure. Most twin-engined bombers in WW2 proved to have fairly high attrition rates, this includes the ones we think of as good like the Ju 88 or the B-25.
Two Squadrons using them as bombers in 1942. No 105 started to equip in Dec of 1941, first operation was end of May 1942.No 139 squadron was equipped with Mosquitos in Sept of 1942. Debatable about early war bomber. 1939-1942 bomber.Mosquito is by far the best bomber.
We can get into a debate about light vs medium.Runners up early war (1939-1942)
For the early war, I like the A-20C, the Kawasaki Ki-48, the Nakajima Ki-49, the Martin 167 and 187, the Ju 88, the LeO 451, and the Pe-2
Two Squadrons using them as bombers in 1942. No 105 started to equip in Dec of 1941, first operation was end of May 1942.No 139 squadron was equipped with Mosquitos in Sept of 1942. Debatable about early war bomber. 1939-1942 bomber.
We can get into a debate about light vs medium.
The A-20 was usually called a light bomber max load 2000lbs inside.
The Ki-48 was light bomber, 400kg inside.
The Ki-49 was a medium (or heavy)
The Martin 167 was a light bomber. Wiki says 2000lb but other sources are not quite so generous, around 1200lbs depending on size of the bombs.
The Martin 187 was more of a medium, empty weight went up about 50% over the Baltimore. Gross weight was around 6,000lbs heavier. Bombload was 2000lbs according to most sources.
JU-88 was a medium although there is quite a difference between the A-1 and the A-4
LeO 451 is a medium, it could carry quite a load but traded fuel for bombs so actual load was usually less.
PE-2 was a light bomber. We have been over the bombloads several times.
Including 15,000lb gross weight bombers and 25-30,000lb (or heavier) bombers in the same catagory seems a bit unfair/unrealistic.
The larger medium bombers had more flexibility than the light bombers but much of the bomb loads and ranges in Wiki are nonsense.
The heaviest load and longest range never go together.
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post. The Mosquito, important as it was from 1943 on as a bomber had very little impact in 1942 so claiming it was the best medium bomber in th e1939-42 time period is debatable. The opening post makes no time distinction, that came later. The Ki-67, the Ju 388, and the Arado 234 have got nothing to do with 1939-1942 either although they do come into play for the 2nd half of the war.Well seeing as this thread was already discussing aircraft as rare in the field as the Ki-67, the Ju 388, and the Arado 234 then I think it's Ok to include an aircraft as important as the Mosquito. Even with two squadrons, it made a mark, and was noticed, fortunately. It's importance only grew as we know very well.
My criteria for a light bomber is (somewhat arbitrarily) something that carries about the same amount of bombs as a fighter bomber to a range not much greater than a fighter bomber can fly. These are kind of useless unless they are super accurate or deadly (i.e. dive bombers or torpedo bombers) or have a good survival rate, though with a navigator they could also be useful as pathfinders. A medium bomber is a plane that can carry more than a typical fighter bomber (often about 2,000 lbs) and carry it a bit further than most fighter bombers can fly (say close to 1,000 miles nominal range). A heavy bomber is something that carries a lot of bombs a very long distance (say closer to 2,000 miles) - to me there's only a few of those: B-29, Lancaster, B-17, B-24, Hallifax etc.
My criteria for what makes a good bomber is different from most. Most people seem to believe whichever bomber could carry the heaviest load of TNT to the target area and drop it somewhere in the vicinity was the best. To me what makes a good bomber is destroying their target at a fairly high rate, i.e. not 1 or 2% of the time but 30 or 40% of the time (per raid, lets say). And mostly returning to base intact, as in, the majority of the squadron makes it back.
The B-26 ended up having a great career and safety record after Martin made some changes and pilot training was increased. That was the plane that started my dads army air corps career.The object of ANY bomber was to put bombs on target ( or at least in the target area) will suffering acceptable losses. The more bombs (or tonnage) per loss the better and obviously more range per ton of bombs/loss is better.
Losses could/would be from all causes. B-26 almost got canceled before it really saw action due to training losses. Better training helped, but difficult to fly aircraft, even of high performance may not be the best answer.
Mosquitoes had high performance and low losses, they could provide precision strikes but tonnage carried was on the low side. Perhaps the precision made up for it. when using 4000lb HC bombs which upped the tonnage the precision fell off.
Other planes had different trade offs, good at one thing, not so good at others.
The "Best" is probably an all around airplane that does't really stand out in any one area. Planes that are exceptional in one area tend to be lacking in others.
Like the Ar 234, fast and very survivable in the battle zone but bombing from 20,000ft and 400mph requires a might good bomb sight, especially for a single man aircraft. 1100lbs of bombs over a range of 970miles isn't so good either, A Blenheim could do better in 1939 although it had trouble with the surviving with acceptable losses part.
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post. The Mosquito, important as it was from 1943 on as a bomber had very little impact in 1942 so claiming it was the best medium bomber in th e1939-42 time period is debatable. The opening post makes no time distinction, that came later. The Ki-67, the Ju 388, and the Arado 234 have got nothing to do with 1939-1942 either although they do come into play for the 2nd half of the war.
Your criteria is somewhat arbitrary and also needs the use of the retrospectroscope. Plenty of air forces had light bombers in the 1930s and into the first years of WW II. They carried, at the time, a lot more bombs than a fighter bomber because fighter bombers either didn't exist or carried truly small payloads. Comparing 1942-44 fighter bombers to 1938-1941 light bombers skews things somewhat.
Same with medium bombers. in 1938-41/42 they carried a lot more bombs than the fighter bombers of the time (again non extant or only in small numbers with small bombs) and carried it an awful lot further, not bit further. There were very few fighters that could fly even 600 miles without any bombs in 1938-41. 1942 saw a few show up.
Heavy bombers, a bit more of the same, applying 1942-45 standards to 1939-42 skews things.
Carrying the heaviest load of TNT to the target (and returning) is a good starting point for evaluating bombers. It is not the total evaluation.
However if you need 100 bombers of one type to get the target effect of 50 of another type then things do need to be looked at. the 50 larger, more expensive bombers may be a better deal than 100 cheap, small bombers.
That is a point I would agree with, but the machine does define the limits. The Finns adapted many mediocre fighters into good fighting machines, but even they couldn't do anything with a Caudron, and they did a lot better with Bf 109Gs when they got those than they had with the older types. Training and pilot skill is always a major factor, look at the Wildcat vs. the Zero (on both sides). Or the difference in bombing accuracy and air to air combat for Navy flown SBDs vs Marine or Army flown. But we can usually see a range of success and failure in the operational history, if the planes could be adapted (and they were used long enough) we can usually see if they had potential or not.A lot is made of bomber A having destroyed a certain target on a one day mission to prove how good the airplane was. Rather overlooks the crew. Some crews accomplished quite a bit with some mediocre (if not down right poor) aircraft.
The Russians actually got this contraption to work a few times.
View attachment 613326
from Wiki,
. On 1 August 1941, a pair of TB-3s in Zveno-SPB configuration, each with two Polikarpov I-16 fighters carrying a pair of 250 kilograms (550 lb) bombs, destroyed an oil depot with no losses in the port of Constanța, Romania.[11] On 11 and 13 August 1941, Zveno-SPB successfully damaged the King Carol I Bridge over the Danube in Romania."
However the training and rarity of the crews that could successfully use this combination kept it from becoming more common.
A large bomb load gives options. A small load restricts options. Options include trading bomb load for range and options in types and sizes of bombs for different targets.
Look how much havoc was wrought by the D3A, the SBD, the Stuka, the or the A-20. I don't think we can say they had a marginal impact. I guarantee D3As could have sunk the Hipper, if Skuas could lay a bomb on it. SBDs as well.Some bombers had rather tight bomb bays and despite carrying a decent weight options were restricted, but in general bomb load is a good indicator of flexibility.
The B-26 ended up having a great career and safety record after Martin made some changes and pilot training was increased. That was the plane that started my dads army air corps carrier.