best medium bomber

[cheddar cheese]

A-26 as well for me...

 

[book1182]

American = B-26 ruggedness,bomb load, speed
German = JU-88 only German bomber I would have wanted to be in
British = Bristol Beaufort if you can call it a medium bomber
Japan = Neil/Sally???

The British and Japanese only really had heavy and light bombers. What would you consider medium bombers for these two nations? Mosquito of course in the bomber configuration. What other ones though?

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

the japs eat sushi so a heavy to them is a light bomber in the west

 

[plan_D]

The British only had heavy and light bombers? The Wellington, Whitley and Manchester were all medium bombers compared to the real heavy bombers of the war, like the Lancaster and Halifax. The only homegrown heavy bombers in the RAF were the Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling. There's probably more medium than heavy bombers, actually.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and the mossie is never really counted as a medium bomber, as she was rarely used in the strategic role, when the RAF think of bombers they only think of strategic bombing, attack bombers like the mossie are considdered ground attack/light strike, not as bombers in the way the RAF thinks of them............

The RAF did have a large number of mediums as they tried out different designs, including as pD has mentioned, the wimpy, manchester, whitley, hampden (and family) plus a few others.........

and the beaufighter wasn't a medium bomber...........

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

it was kinda like a zestorer right?

 

[v2]

American = B-26 ruggedness,bomb load, speed
German = JU-88 only German bomber I would have wanted to be in
British = Bristol Beaufort if you can call it a medium bomber
Japan = Neil/Sally???

The British and Japanese only really had heavy and light bombers. What would you consider medium bombers for these two nations? Mosquito of course in the bomber configuration. What other ones though?

Polish- PZL 37B "Łoś"

 

[davparlr]

No contest here. For gross weights from 20 to 40k and bomb loads of 4 to 6K, A/B-26 Invader out distances the rest. It was powerful, fast with good range and payload. The deal maker on this selection is the fact that the A/B-26 maintained effective opertional status (even in the US military) for another 20 years or so, fighting in Korea, Cuba and Vietnam. I don't think any other contestant can stand up to that record. In addition, it looked mean! Mosquito barely makes it into this list weightwise but, oh, what a plane.

Assignment of classification by user ("A" not "B") is not relevant. Note "F" in F-117.

Note on the much maligned B-26 Maruder. Another great bomber with a good survival record. With high wingload, it was ahead or its time and cause training problems. Todays military pilots would have had no problems. If I had to fly in WWII in a medium bomber, that would be my list.

 

[syscom3]

Gen. Kenney of the FEAF had a low opinion of the A26 because of its pilot visibility problems. He felt that the B25 had a better chance of destroying the target.

The B26 had a good combat record but it had its problems. Its production was stopped early in the war and in the 12AF, B25's began to replace the B26 groups.

My vote is for the B25. Fought in the war from start to finish (for the AAF)in all theaters.

 

[Glider]

Can anyone tell me why they don't like the Do217. Compared to the B25 and B26 it went faster, further, higher with a larger bombload and served well against overwhelming air superiority until the end of the war. It also was more verstile than either of these planes carrying guided missiles and serving as a nightfighter.
Even compared to the A26 its performance was close with similar top speeds and payload plus of course it was in service about three years earlier.

 

[davparlr]

Can't say too much about the maruder. However, the B-25, while used and was effective in many missions, it did not last long as a war fighter. I do not believe it even served in Korea. It did last many years as a trainer. Its contribution to WWII was much greater than the A/B-26 and I will concede it was the best medium bomber for the war era, but as an absolute best medium bomber of WWII, the A/B-26 proved itself by it's longevity and performance as stated before. It was 70 mph faster than the B-25 and had a greater range with 1000 lbs larger bomb load. That more than makes up for some reduced visibility I would think.

The research I did on the Do217 indicated that the only model that was faster than the A-26 was the high altitude reconnaissance version, which, I believe, had a separately driven fuselage mounted supercharger and was probably was stripped and could not be classified as a bomber. In all other aspects, the A-26 was at least equivalent. See http://ww2aircraft.co.uk/Do217.html

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

the 217 was in service before the a-26

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

that's what glider said.............

and are we not separating strategic bombers from tactical?

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

yeah but they cant help mentioning it

 

[syscom3]

Gen Kenneys opinions of the A26 were framed by his pilots. They said that flying at low altitudes required the pilots to be able to see their targets and obstacles.

There is no way the A26 could have performed the low level strafing and skip bombing the B25's did.

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

whatever it is, the Do-217 was a great plane usually forgotten...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Gen Kenneys opinions of the A26 were framed by his pilots. They said that flying at low altitudes required the pilots to be able to see their targets and obstacles.

There is no way the A26 could have performed the low level strafing and skip bombing the B25's did.

I've been in the cockpit of both aircraft and the visibility is about the same, I give the B-25 points to be able to carry the 75mm cannon, the A-26s cockpit just needed a re-design and once that was completed it was more than capable and eventually replaced all B-25s, 26s, and A-20s.

Operators in the ETO had little complaints about the aircraft...

Here's the real story....

"The A-26 entered combat testing in mid 1944, when 4 of the aircraft assigned to the Fifth Air Force began operating in the Southwest Pacific. Lt. Gen. George C. Kenney, Commanding General of the Far East Air Forces, grounded the planes after less than 175 hours of total flying time and stated shortly afterwards, "We do not want the A-26 under any circumstances as a replacement for anything." Ironically, about 4 years before, as a colonel in charge of the Wright Field Production Division and a strong proponent of attack aviation, Kenney had strongly urged the aircraft's development. General Kenney's statement and his mid 1944 decision to ground the planes appeared justified. A-26 production had slipped badly; the B-25s and A-20s that the A-26s would replace had proven satisfactory; and the canopy of available A-26s was poorly designed. A new canopy was needed to improve visibility. Without it, pilots could not safely fly the formations required for low level tactics. While the Wright Field Production Division agreed that the A-26 could not replace current types of light and medium bombers, Maj. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Commanding General of the Ninth Air Force, was much less critical than General Kenney. The few A-26s introduced in the European theater towards the end of the summer were performing well. Undoubtedly, the aircraft's marginal visibility needed attention. But new productions were seldom free of problems, and General Vandenberg thought the A-26 was a satisfactory replacement for the B-26s and A-20s in Europe.
Regardless of the mixed reports generated by the performance of the early A-26 (A-26As or A-26Bs), the Army Air Forces' plans to re-equip all B-25, B-26, and A-20 units with A-26s were reaffirmed in November 1944. In December, 2 more contracts were approved, and in April 1945 both of the new agreements were supplemented, bringing to 4,000 the total of new A-26s ordered since mid 1944. However, the German surrender on 8 May 1945 prompted a re evaluation of military requirements. Production which had been scheduled to increase to 400 A-26s per month was cut to 150. The procurement orders of 1944 and 1945 were canceled.

Douglas adopted several long standing suggestions by General Arnold: engineering personnel at Long Beach established closer liaison with the Tulsa plant; extra well qualified personnel were placed in the 2 plants; and the number of stations in the production lines was raised. These production changes facilitated modifications of the aircraft, which were designed to improve its effectiveness. An all purpose gun nose was devised and the faulty nose landing gear redesigned. A-26s (redesignated as A-26Cs) that came off the production lines after January 1945 featured an enlarged, raised canopy which provided increased visibility.

 

[Glider]

Its suprising that with all the experience of the war behind them, the designers should make such a mistake over the visibility. Which is unquestionably one of the most critial items needed for any warplane of that era.
One question you might be able to awnser FJ, is do you know how much could the gunner see through the sight? I have always had a doubt over sights of that nature remembering that the most important job of a gunner is seeing the enemy coming in so the pilot can take evasive action.

 

[davparlr]

whatever it is, the Do-217 was a great plane usually forgotten...

That is true. I didn't know anything about it until I did a little research. Even my German aircraft book did not have it. It is an impressive aircraft although a little funky looking-like all Dos.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Its suprising that with all the experience of the war behind them, the designers should make such a mistake over the visibility. Which is unquestionably one of the most critial items needed for any warplane of that era.
One question you might be able to awnser FJ, is do you know how much could the gunner see through the sight? I have always had a doubt over sights of that nature remembering that the most important job of a gunner is seeing the enemy coming in so the pilot can take evasive action.

Good question glider - I've seen B-26s with the turrets removed and upward visibility was excellent, but from what I remember that all that could be seen from the gunner/ navigator's position. I'm wondering if control of the turrets was possible from the cockpit?!?