Favorite "Back-water bomber"?

Discussion in 'Polls' started by Oreo, Aug 7, 2008.

?

Your favorite back-water bomber?

  1. Lockheed Hudson

    9 vote(s)
    23.1%
  2. Martin Maryland

    1 vote(s)
    2.6%
  3. Martin Baltimore

    2 vote(s)
    5.1%
  4. Martin B-10/B-12 series

    2 vote(s)
    5.1%
  5. Douglas B-18 series

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Vultee Vengeance

    3 vote(s)
    7.7%
  7. Bristol Blenheim

    9 vote(s)
    23.1%
  8. Bristol Beaufort

    4 vote(s)
    10.3%
  9. Vickers Wellesley

    2 vote(s)
    5.1%
  10. Junkers Ju 86

    1 vote(s)
    2.6%
  11. Potez 63.11

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  12. Caproni Ca 133

    1 vote(s)
    2.6%
  13. Caproni Ca 135

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  14. Caproni Ca 306 through 314 series

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  15. Fiat BR 20

    2 vote(s)
    5.1%
  16. Tupolev SB-2

    1 vote(s)
    2.6%
  17. Kawasaki Ki-48 Lily

    1 vote(s)
    2.6%
  18. Mitsubuishi Ki 15 Babs

    1 vote(s)
    2.6%
  19. Mitsubishi Ki 30 Ann

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  20. Mitsubishi Ki-51 Sonia

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Oreo

    Oreo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    jobsite dumpster truck driver
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Here I'm going to post a poll of quite a few different bombers that were often used in the lonely, desolate parts of the world during the war (though sometimes some of them may have fought on major fronts as well). These are mostly planes we don't talk much about, ones you're not super likely to see 3-foot prints of hanging on peoples' walls, but aircraft which still managed to do their part for the war effort. Vote your favorite, for whatever reason-- not necessarily best, unless you think so.

    I know there are other planes I could include in this list, but just go with the ones I've put.
     
  2. evangilder

    evangilder "Shooter"
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    19,419
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Network Engineer/Photographer
    Location:
    Moorpark, CA
    Home Page:
    Well, I don't see any that you have put...
     
  3. ccheese

    ccheese Member In Perpetuity
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,669
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    R E T I R E D !!
    Location:
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Where's the poll, Oreo ???? Did you forget it ??

    Charles
     
  4. Oreo

    Oreo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    jobsite dumpster truck driver
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Come on ya guys, you know it always takes a while for me to try to get them all written down!
     
  5. Oreo

    Oreo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    jobsite dumpster truck driver
    Location:
    South Carolina
    I voted for the Baltimore because of its performance and armament.
     
  6. evangilder

    evangilder "Shooter"
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    19,419
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Network Engineer/Photographer
    Location:
    Moorpark, CA
    Home Page:
    Don't mind me, I'm just bustin your balls. ;)
     
  7. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    Maybe I'll vote later, but I like
    Martin Baltimore, because of its specs
    Bristol Blenheim. because "Pelti-Heikki" was the main bomber type of the FAF during the war years
    Vickers Wellesley, I don't know why but I have a soft spot for that original looking bomber which could carry bigger load much farther away than one would think
    Mitsubishi Ki-51, Japanese Sturmovik

    Juha
     
  8. Thorlifter

    Thorlifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    7,909
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    IT Nerd
    Location:
    Dallas, Tx Jubail, Saudi Arabia
    I'll go with the Blenheim. Versatile as hell, it offered the British a good plane in the very early stages of the war. When it was introduced in 1935, it was faster than any plane in the British arsonal.
     
  9. Wildcat

    Wildcat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,857
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Workin' for the man....
    Location:
    South East Queensland
    Vultee Vengeance!! For an aircraft that performed so well over the jungles of New Guinea and Burma with precision attacks in direct support of allied troops, it always amazes me that it remains so obscure. It did its job with no glamour or glory and it did it well.
     
  10. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    Wildcat
    What a surprise choice! I agree that it did well.

    Juha
     
  11. renrich

    renrich Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,542
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    real estate
    Location:
    Montrose, Colorado
    TBD did yeoman duty both as torpedo and horizontal bomber in early raids on islands and at Coral Sea. The sacrifises of the Devastators at Midway allowed the SBDs to do their job.
     
  12. parsifal

    parsifal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    10,678
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Urban Design/Strategic Studies Tutor
    Location:
    Orange NSW
    For me it would need to be the Beafort. RAAF used it to good effect over the SWPA, at Bismarck sea. The RAF made life virtually impossible for the Kreigsmarine units at Brest, that effectively prevented Rheinebung from being implemented in full ( Scharnhorst and Gneisenau to sortie and link up with Bismarck, to form a squadron able to tackle nearly anything the Brits could throw at them). All of this prevented by the heroic and tireless efforts of one aircraft
     
  13. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    The Blenheim first flew in early 1935, the Hurricane prototype flew later that year. Both entered service in 1937.
     
  14. Graeme

    Graeme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    2,721
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Out of curiosity, what do you guys consider to be a Blenheim? Top photo, bottom photo or both?...

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  15. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Ok, the Bristo Type 142 (civil a/c) flew in April of '35, I'm not sure when the 142M first flew.

    My point was that the Hurricane's flight was very close to the same time (if not before the 142M) and they were introduced in '37, only a few months apart. (deliveries of Blenheims starting in March and Hurricanes in October)
     
  16. pbfoot

    pbfoot Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,636
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    niagara falls
    the Blenheim was out of date before the war now how the hell does it get more votes then the Hudson that was the mainstay of ASW for 2 years in all theatres a task the Bleheim could not even consider
     
  17. parsifal

    parsifal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    10,678
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Urban Design/Strategic Studies Tutor
    Location:
    Orange NSW
    Hi PB

    I am the first to admit the inadequacies of the blenheim. By WWII it was slow, unarmoured, lightly armed, and unmanouverable. Its armament r, whilst mounted partly in a turret, only had been designed to allow that turret a 180 degree firing arc. They were supposed to engage attacks from the forward position by their pathetic fixed armament of 1 x 303 and a Browning MG...


    However, it was adapted to many different roles, and did remain useful. after the debacle in France, many of the Bomber versions were up-armoured,and armed, and of course were utilzed as night bombers. They were found vulnerable to flak. Some were adapted to the ground attack role ( armoured, but grossly underpowered). Some formed the early markds of Long range Night Fighters, where they enjoyed some success, albeit costly to themselves. During the battle Of Britqain, two squadrons of of the NFs were re-allocated to Coastal Command, where they provided some long rnge protection against marauding FW 200s. These aircraft also performed general maritime recon roles, the same (or similar0 to that undertaken by the Hudson. The internal tankage of these later Blenheims was increased from about 250 gallons, to around 450 gallons, which greatly increased the practical range of the type.

    My understanding is that from 1942, the Canadians began to produce the Blongbroke, a Blenheim derivative, which was designed and used as a Maritime patrol Bomber. Dont know haow many of these were built but it seems to be at least 150.

    Blenheim is not my favourite either....too old slow and vulnerable for me, but it did perform a lot of duties, and that did include Maritme recon.
     
  18. parsifal

    parsifal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    10,678
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Urban Design/Strategic Studies Tutor
    Location:
    Orange NSW
    :oops: Also, I think I accidentally hit the blenheim Box, when I was aiming for the Beaqfort Box
     
  19. Graeme

    Graeme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    2,721
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, trivial point, but I’m a trivial man.

    The name Blenheim seems to have been applied shortly after the Yugoslav government purchasing commission visited the 142M production line on May 22 1936. The Blenheim first flew on the 25th June 1936. As you correctly point out, both the Spitfire and Hurricane prototypes had flown by this time.

    The Bristol Type 142 that flew in 1935 was the ‘brainchild’ of Lord Rothermere, who requested a high-speed executive aircraft that would be “the fastest commercial aeroplane in Europe”, at a cost of 18,500 pounds. Possibly anti-American, he was also hoping to kick-start Britain’s aviation industry, counter-blast America’s DC-1, and shame the RAF’s current fighter aircraft. Hence the name “Britain First.”

    He achieved his goal, the RAF did sit up and take notice, but when the Blenheim finally few, that incredible speed of Britain First had disappeared although the myth persists. Some sources claim the Blenheim was obsolescent by early 1938 and in mock combat Hurricanes were “running rings around it” early 1939. According to Mason (The British Bomber), despite the much advertised maximum speed of 280mph, it prove incapable of exceeding 215mph at 10,000ft with a full compliment of fuel, armament and bombs. Another points out that the anachronistic looking Vickers Wellesley was only 12mph slower at this altitude, but carried twice the bombload, further, and had the same defensive armament.

    Lord Rothermere was so impressed with Britain First that he went back to Bristols and requested another executive transport, but with a maximum speed of 360mph, and was told “No!”

    Maybe they should have tried.

    More trivia, regards Lord Rothermere…

    Harold Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

     
  20. machine shop tom

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I opted for the Baltimore. While it's bomb load wasn't terribly impressive, this aircraft did yeoman's work in the MTO. It fought for various air forces at a time when more effective planes were not yet available or were allocated to "higher" priority theaters.

    tom
     
Loading...

Share This Page