davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Amen, brother. At least don't look until you feel you have establish a safe separation distance.
best medium bomber
- Thread starter elmilitaro
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Amen, brother. At least don't look until you feel you have establish a safe separation distance.
A-26pilotson
Recruit
- 1
- Apr 1, 2016
My dad was a pilot with the 97th Bombardment Squadron, 47th Bombardment Group in WWII. He flew combat missions in A-20s and A-26s. He also trained on B-26. He did not like the B-26 at all because of its high stall speed and hot landing requirements. He absolutely loved the A-26 especially in low level bombing and strafing runs of trains and transportation hubs in the PO Valley..
A lot has to do with the pilots in those days. At the height of the war the Army Air Force Flight schools were pumping out pilots like mad. Lots of air time and experience was the exception not the rule. My dad was running a milling machine in a small Illinois town one minute and flying A-20s the next. In 1942 he was all of 20 years old, having graduated high school at 15. By the time he was 23 he was flying the hottest medium bomber in the war.
The B-26 marauder had a very high accident rate due to pilot error. The A-20 was very nimble but a bit slow. The A-26 was fast and good at low levels with high bomb capacities and tactical armament.
A lot has to do with the pilots in those days. At the height of the war the Army Air Force Flight schools were pumping out pilots like mad. Lots of air time and experience was the exception not the rule. My dad was running a milling machine in a small Illinois town one minute and flying A-20s the next. In 1942 he was all of 20 years old, having graduated high school at 15. By the time he was 23 he was flying the hottest medium bomber in the war.
The B-26 marauder had a very high accident rate due to pilot error. The A-20 was very nimble but a bit slow. The A-26 was fast and good at low levels with high bomb capacities and tactical armament.
Glider
Captain
I admit that I am not a fan of the A26. It was big and the guns in the nose more impressive than effective in Europe because low altitude flying over Europe was a very dangerous pastime. You could get away with it in the Pacific where the AA fire was less effective but not really in Europe.
Also I don't like the defensive set up. Periscopes give a very limited view of what is going on outside and the chances of not seeing what shoots you down are magnified.
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
RAF 2 Group were keen to test the A-26 Invader, as they'd had good experience with, and liked, the Douglas predecessor, the Boston.
However, when one was tested, the dorsal turret came adrift in flight, embedding itself in the fin, and, apart from that rather inauspicious event, it was found that handling and stability were poor, compared to the Boston (Boston MkIII - the MkIV was not liked by crews, being slower, heavier and not as maouvreable), and control of the remote gun barbettes, apart from being cumbersome, was not suited to the 2 Group role in the skies of northern Europe.
Doubtless the loss of the turret had a great bearing on the decision not to re-equip with the Invader, but I often wonder how it would have actually performed, especially in the low-level operations which were a hallmark of this Group.
Would have been interesting to see pics, today, of the type in RAF squadron service, and no doubt it woud provide some interesting modelling subjects.
However, when one was tested, the dorsal turret came adrift in flight, embedding itself in the fin, and, apart from that rather inauspicious event, it was found that handling and stability were poor, compared to the Boston (Boston MkIII - the MkIV was not liked by crews, being slower, heavier and not as maouvreable), and control of the remote gun barbettes, apart from being cumbersome, was not suited to the 2 Group role in the skies of northern Europe.
Doubtless the loss of the turret had a great bearing on the decision not to re-equip with the Invader, but I often wonder how it would have actually performed, especially in the low-level operations which were a hallmark of this Group.
Would have been interesting to see pics, today, of the type in RAF squadron service, and no doubt it woud provide some interesting modelling subjects.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
The RAF was worried about the pilots view when flying with a single pilot. Just looking at pictures of the A26 it does look to me that the pilots view was an afterthought.
drgondog
Major
Flying (and liking) the B-26 Marauder did seem to be separated by experience. My father escaped from training command in 1943 and flew B-26s, then wrangled his way into fighters. That said, he liked the B-26C very much and he also flew the A/B-26 Invader in Korea. He also had a lot of time in the A-20. When he went to school on the B-26 in Del Rio, TX he had 1750 hours.
Post WWII, he acted as IP to other 355th FG fighter pilots who had zero twin engine time, with the 355th B-26 hack.
Post WWII, he acted as IP to other 355th FG fighter pilots who had zero twin engine time, with the 355th B-26 hack.
Gixxerman
Senior Airman
Some great aircraft mentioned, personally I like the B26, A/B26, the Mossie.
One plane that seems over-looked is the Ju188 (which became the Ju388), it seems to have impressive performance.
One plane that seems over-looked is the Ju188 (which became the Ju388), it seems to have impressive performance.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Tomo, I agree about the Tu-2, but personally, I would lean towards the Pe-2 for my choice.
My other picks for best medium would be the Ju88 for Germany, the G4M for Japan and the B-25 for the U.S.
A few that held real potential, would be the LeO 451 of France and the PZL.37 of Poland.
I didn't pick a good medium for Britain, as they had a few contenders for this position and my opinion would be for the Mosquito.
Italy had a few candidates, but nothing that I would say qualifies for the "best".
My other picks for best medium would be the Ju88 for Germany, the G4M for Japan and the B-25 for the U.S.
A few that held real potential, would be the LeO 451 of France and the PZL.37 of Poland.
I didn't pick a good medium for Britain, as they had a few contenders for this position and my opinion would be for the Mosquito.
Italy had a few candidates, but nothing that I would say qualifies for the "best".
Shortround6
Major General
IL-2 was in no way, shape or form a medium bomber 
Granted definitions changed some as the war went on and even changed a bit from country to country but IL-2s could NOT perform many of the missions that other medium bombers did on routine.
Medium bombers are NOT just big attack planes.
Granted definitions changed some as the war went on and even changed a bit from country to country but IL-2s could NOT perform many of the missions that other medium bombers did on routine.
Medium bombers are NOT just big attack planes.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I look at versatility of the airframe when making the consideration
Factors like bombload and speed are major criteria, but how much use can the service get from that particular series?
Look at the Ju88 for example...everything from a level bomber, to a dive-bomber, heavy fighter, night fighter, ground attack gunship, torpedo bomber and so on. It provided a versitile "jack-of-all-trades" platform to which it performed well in each role. This puts the Ju88 above similar Luftwaffe types.
Factors like bombload and speed are major criteria, but how much use can the service get from that particular series?
Look at the Ju88 for example...everything from a level bomber, to a dive-bomber, heavy fighter, night fighter, ground attack gunship, torpedo bomber and so on. It provided a versitile "jack-of-all-trades" platform to which it performed well in each role. This puts the Ju88 above similar Luftwaffe types.
Shortround6
Major General
Well, you can have a "most versatile" airframe but that doesn't mean it was the best at any one role even if it was a good (or great) value for the using air force.
The A-26 was pretty much the best "medium" bomber of the war but it came late which limited it's actual contribution. It also means that being a later design it had laminar flow wings, double slotted flaps and other "advantages" than older aircraft did not have.
Considerations should not only include MAX bomb load but how far the particular plane could carry a "normal" bomb load.
Speed is not only top speed but cruise speeds. Is the plane fast enough to escape trouble (mostly) or at least fast enough to make interception difficult (few planes were fast enough to make interception impossible, Mosquito fans can please put down the rocks/bricks).
Defensive armament kind of depends on speed, if you are very fast you don't need defensive guns to keep losses down, if you are slow you need all the guns you can get and it still won't be enough. Middle speeds may be able to get away with middling armament. Now we have to define "middle speeds"
Russian planes generally had crap for defensive armament. Were they fast enough to get away with it or did the Russians accept loss rates that Western nations would not?
German bombers were also more than bit lacking in defensive armament as a general rule. And no, they really weren't fast enough in the common models to get away with it while carrying a worthwhile combination of bombs/fuel.
British didn't really have medium bombers of their own, they bought them from the Americans. The Whitley was a twin engine heavy bomber or night bomber. The Blenheim was a light bomber. The Hampden and Wellington had no place in daylight operations unless well out to sea
British bought the Baltimore and Ventura to fill the "medium" bomber role. They didn't work in western Europe.
The A-26 was pretty much the best "medium" bomber of the war but it came late which limited it's actual contribution. It also means that being a later design it had laminar flow wings, double slotted flaps and other "advantages" than older aircraft did not have.
Considerations should not only include MAX bomb load but how far the particular plane could carry a "normal" bomb load.
Speed is not only top speed but cruise speeds. Is the plane fast enough to escape trouble (mostly) or at least fast enough to make interception difficult (few planes were fast enough to make interception impossible, Mosquito fans can please put down the rocks/bricks).
Defensive armament kind of depends on speed, if you are very fast you don't need defensive guns to keep losses down, if you are slow you need all the guns you can get and it still won't be enough. Middle speeds may be able to get away with middling armament. Now we have to define "middle speeds"
Russian planes generally had crap for defensive armament. Were they fast enough to get away with it or did the Russians accept loss rates that Western nations would not?
German bombers were also more than bit lacking in defensive armament as a general rule. And no, they really weren't fast enough in the common models to get away with it while carrying a worthwhile combination of bombs/fuel.
British didn't really have medium bombers of their own, they bought them from the Americans. The Whitley was a twin engine heavy bomber or night bomber. The Blenheim was a light bomber. The Hampden and Wellington had no place in daylight operations unless well out to sea
British bought the Baltimore and Ventura to fill the "medium" bomber role. They didn't work in western Europe.
It is really unfortunate that A-26 was outfitted with 3rd best 'general' version of the redoutable R-2800, so it did not capitalized with next-gen aerodynamics as much as it was really possible. It also never received the 'C' series of the R-2800, as did (in different versions) the P-47, F4U, F7F and F8F. Let alone the 'E' series (like latest F4U and F8F versions), for Korean war...
The Tu-2 also showed a great promise with AM 39 engine, among other things it was doing 400 mph.
The Tu-2 also showed a great promise with AM 39 engine, among other things it was doing 400 mph.
drgondog
Major
Tomo - IMO, the A/B-26 never had a mission which required the 'C' series engine as the war was winding down and jet aircraft were clearly going to make sure that any a/c equipped with the 'C' series was not going to fly high enough or fast enough to warrant post production modifications.
Post WWII future operations for the Invader clearly point to the validity of the decision to not 're-engine' that great airplane. Post war my father had a P-61B night fighter squadron at Hamilton Field and had the opportunity to fly a P-61C (that never replaced the B) with the turbo supercharged R-2800-C. He liked the airplane very much but opined that the P-82 night fighter was overall superior to the P-61C. I suspect AAF planners felt the same way as the P-51C never got a production order and only a couple of F-15s came into existence as Recon version.
Shortround6
Major General
For most of the uses intended for the A-26 the "better" versions of the R-2800 might not have really done much for mission capability.
Two stage superchargers certainly do nothing for planes flying at strafing altitudes.
For the nightfighter variant or perhaps for a recon version they might have been useful.
The B-26Ks used in Vie Nam used "C" series engines. Same engines used in C-118a cargo planes ( DC-6 freighter).
A-26s in WW II got water injection from the B-45 block on. 2350hp WER at low (very low) altitude.
If you want a high altitude "medium" bomber then the two stage systems make sense but bombing accuracy goes to pot due to the altitude. The US had several large high altitude medium bombers "in the works" and decided it didn't want any of them.
The Martin XB-27 was a version of the Martin B-26 with a pressurized cockpit (?) and turbocharged engines but was not proceed with (built).
The North American XB-28 saw two prototypes built, Pressure cabin and turbo R-2800s
First flew 2 1/2 months before the A-26.
Two stage superchargers certainly do nothing for planes flying at strafing altitudes.
For the nightfighter variant or perhaps for a recon version they might have been useful.
The B-26Ks used in Vie Nam used "C" series engines. Same engines used in C-118a cargo planes ( DC-6 freighter).
A-26s in WW II got water injection from the B-45 block on. 2350hp WER at low (very low) altitude.
If you want a high altitude "medium" bomber then the two stage systems make sense but bombing accuracy goes to pot due to the altitude. The US had several large high altitude medium bombers "in the works" and decided it didn't want any of them.
The Martin XB-27 was a version of the Martin B-26 with a pressurized cockpit (?) and turbocharged engines but was not proceed with (built).
The North American XB-28 saw two prototypes built, Pressure cabin and turbo R-2800s
First flew 2 1/2 months before the A-26.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I'm being repetitive to my previous post somewhere but I gotta put it in. It is my opinion that there was nothing significantly wrong with the original small wing B-26 but rather a failure of the AAF to anticipate the future and modify training to adapt pilots to high speed, high wing load, aircraft, a position they were going to be forced into en masse within 5-7 years. Instead, the AAF modified the aircraft, reducing speed and adding weight which effectively reduce top speed by over 30 mph and cruise speed by over 40 mph. Certainly not a insignificant performance impact. The Navy also fell into this trap, even more so due to constraints of carrier operations, to the extent that they had no aircraft available to compete in the air superiority role in Korea. The early B-26 were nearly as fast as a Zero/F4F and cruised at a speed where the Zero was very hard to maneuver. Little wonder the Japanese thought the B-26s at Midway were very fast and difficult to bring down, and that was with a torpedo hanging underneath.
Today, many AF pilots, including bomber pilots, are trained in aircraft that fly final around 180 mph!
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Ok, so it seems to me that the definition of "best" bomber is the fastest, then, not what it could offer it's air force in the way of application - in other words "more bang for your buck".
If we want to go for the "best" medium bomber in that regard, then I would suggest the Ar234.
If we want to talk range, perhaps the Yer-2 is the champion (3, 418 mile range)
The A-26 was certainly a hotrod, but the B-26 and A-20 were right up there, the B-26 proving to be a little more versatile (including dropping torpedoes in it's repertoire, as Dave mentioned).
So the A-26's max. speed was rated at 355 mph, but what was it's speed with max. internal load and stores on the hardpoints?
The A-20 was quite fast for it's time, too, being rated at 339 mph although it's max. load was much shorter than the A-26, this is still impressive.
The Pe-2 was capable of 360mph and was difficult for Luftwaffe fighters to catch, it carried 3,000 lbs max. and was nearly 40 mph faster than the Tu-2 but carried much less than the Tu-2's 3,300 lb. internal/5,000 lb. external max.
If we want to go for the "best" medium bomber in that regard, then I would suggest the Ar234.
If we want to talk range, perhaps the Yer-2 is the champion (3, 418 mile range)
The A-26 was certainly a hotrod, but the B-26 and A-20 were right up there, the B-26 proving to be a little more versatile (including dropping torpedoes in it's repertoire, as Dave mentioned).
So the A-26's max. speed was rated at 355 mph, but what was it's speed with max. internal load and stores on the hardpoints?
The A-20 was quite fast for it's time, too, being rated at 339 mph although it's max. load was much shorter than the A-26, this is still impressive.
The Pe-2 was capable of 360mph and was difficult for Luftwaffe fighters to catch, it carried 3,000 lbs max. and was nearly 40 mph faster than the Tu-2 but carried much less than the Tu-2's 3,300 lb. internal/5,000 lb. external max.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
