September '39 to August '41: the best 2-engined bomber in service

[tomo pauk]

What might be the best bomber in the 1st two war years? Operational types only, no prototypes.
Requirements for the bomber include the bombload over distance, cruise and max speed, defensive properties (guns armament, armor, turrets or hand-held guns, s-s tanks), reliability, no vices, especially in engine-out situation etc.

 

[Vincenzo]

using data collected for my older post i give a list of bombers in the timeline, take in the count we need to take the variant available in the timeline

Whitley
Manchester (imho is not fair count it as 2-engined)
Beaufort
Blenheim
Hampden
Hudson
Maryland
Wellington
Yak-4
SB
Ar-2
Pe-2
DB-3
Il-4
Yer-2
PZL.37
Fokker T.V
Martin 139&166
LeO 451
Amiot 354
Breguet 691&693
DB-7/Boston/Havoc
Potez 633
Amiot 143
Bloch 200
Bloch 210
Ju 86
Ca.135
Ju 88
He 111
Do 17&215
B.R.20
B-18
B-23
B-25
G4M
Ki-21
Ki-48
S.M.79 (two engine variant)

Light bomber to max load ~8 ton
fixed landing carriage
Take off weight 10+ ton heavier

 

[Shortround6]

You can probably cross the IL-4 off the list, not really in service during this time period but it was pretty much just a new name for the DB3-F
Ki-48 I can be crossed off also. Burned like a mini G4M, and carried six 110lb bombs as a typical load. The Ki-48 II got new engines, armor, twice the bomb load and some other improvements but comes into service after the time period.

 

[tomo pauk]

Ki-48 I can be crossed off also. Burned like a mini G4M, and carried six 110lb bombs as a typical load. The Ki-48 II got new engines, armor, twice the bomb load and some other improvements but comes into service after the time period.

Bomb load was, at least going by Japanese Wikipedia, 300-500 kg (typical vs. max?) for the Ki-48-II. Seems like the only case the 800 kg bomb was carried was in Kamikaze missions.

Ki-48 was a bad return of investments for the Japanese IMO. Basically a Blenheim or SB-2 equivalent several years too late.

 

[cherry blossom]

One possible addition to the list is the Bloch MB-175, which unlike the MB-174 could carry at least a small, 600kg, bomb load in its bomb bay. Apparently 20 to 25 had been delivered before the 1940 Armistice but, like the MB-174, they were used for reconnaissance. The MB-175 was tested as a torpedo bomber in summer 1941 and the results justified an order. However, none of the MB-175T version were in service until after 1945!

A more plausible torpedo bomber might be the Beaufort. The August 1941 limit date might be significant as the first Australian Beauforts with the more reliable Twin Wasp were delivered in August.

 

[Glider]

Wellington has to be front runner
Good range, payload, defence, performance and versatility. It was modified to carry the 4,000lb cookie and operated as a torpedo bomber carrying two internal torpedo's. You would be hard pushed to find that combination in any other aircraft

 

[SaparotRob]

Was the Wellington used in an ASW platform?

 

[Glider]

Was the Wellington used in an ASW platform?

Yes. They were extensively used by Coastal Command

 

[SaparotRob]

So the Wellington has that going for it too.

 

[Glider]

Oh yes. You will no doubt find a faster aircraft, one with a longer range but as a package it takes a lot of beating

 

[Vincenzo]

Shortround6
the Il 4-was the new name of DB-3F right, and was available in time of operation Barbarossa so is in timeline; there are not large modification of the following Il-4 so that you can identify a Il-4 that is not a DB-3F.
The Ki-48 was not the alone small load bomb in the timeline, there are the Yakovlev bombers, not that Blenheim, Maryland and Hudson are much better, and i omitted the italian Caproni just because they were used as recce.

cherry blossom
yes the MB.174/175 were used as recce fot this are not in the list, the list is built from data for a topic that required the actual use as a bomber

 

[Shortround6]

Many o

Shortround6
the Il 4-was the new name of DB-3F right, and was available in time of operation Barbarossa so is in timeline; there are not large modification of the following Il-4 so that you can identify a Il-4 that is not a DB-3F.
The Ki-48 was not the alone small load bomb in the timeline, there are the Yakovlev bombers, not that Blenheim, Maryland and Hudson are much better, and i omitted the italian Caproni just because they were used as recce.

cherry blossom
yes the MB.174/175 were used as recce fot this are not in the list, the list is built from data for a topic that required the actual use as a bomber

Many of those planes could/should be classified as light bombers.
The Beaufort is debatable, the Blenheim, Hudson, Maryland are light bombers for example, but not the only ones.
others were just plain obsolete, like the Martin Martin 139&166 and the Amiot 143 & Bloch 200.

While your list is extensive in showing most or all of the possibilities, actual contenders for BEST twin engine bomber are going to come down to 10 or less aircraft.

 

[Milosh]

Was the Wellington used in an ASW platform?

And later as an AWAC.

Dad was a rear gunner in Coastal Command Wellingtons.

 

[Vincenzo]

While your list is extensive in showing most or all of the possibilities, actual contenders for BEST twin engine bomber are going to come down to 10 or less aircraft.

full agree

 

[fastmongrel]

I think it has to be the Wellington. It's a bit dull but only because it did everything reliably and effectively without being showy.

As has been said above there were faster bigger longer ranged better looking with more guns but the Wimpy just got on with the job. It was a sort of Swiss army knife with wings.

If it's not the Wimpy it's its brother from another mother the He111

 

[buffnut453]

If it's not the Wimpy it's its brother from another mother the He111

It's awesome that you got the apostrophes right in that sentence. So few can.

 

[fastmongrel]

It's awesome that you got the apostrophe right in that sentence. So few can.

I didn't get it right first time

 

[fastmongrel]

And later as an AWAC.

Dad was a rear gunner in Coastal Command Wellingtons.

I have often wondered did the rear gunner in a CC aircraft have to stay in his turret the whole flight. It must have been mind numbingly boring and a battle to stay alert.

 

[Shortround6]

The August 1941 cut off date may change things.
For the US the first 14 B-25Bs were delivered in Aug. First B-25s with the power turrets. The 64 earlier planes weren't any better armed than a pre BoB He 111.
The early B-25s were pretty zippy though.

For the french only the LeO 451 and Amiot 354 should be on the list.

 

[buffnut453]

I have often wondered did the rear gunner in a CC aircraft have to stay in his turret the whole flight. It must have been mind numbingly boring and a battle to stay alert.

Actually, I think they're primary role would be as an extra pair of eyes looking for vessels that other crew members may not have spotted. A constant side-to-side scan would essentially cover the entire rear hemisphere behind the aircraft, which is a lot of sea and sky, and it would require constant attention (but I agree, that would be hard to maintain on a long sortie).