Some ranking for two engine bombers

[Vincenzo]

Seen the top ten allied bombers show near all four engine bombers, i ranked for the same category all the two engine bombers (around 60 models)
bomber: Bomber: land, with bomb bay, multi-engine, actual bombing in WW 2.
This time i used "land" more strictly, they need to be used in WW2 versus land target,

ranks for max internal (and enclosed) bomb load (if same weight smaller bomb preference, if again same the older)
Manchester: 4695 kg
Do 217: 4000 kg
Whitley: 3629 kg
B-25: 2812 kg
B-26: 2631 kg
PZL. 37: 2400 kg
Wellington: 2041 kg
Yer-2: 2000 kg
He 111: 2000 kg
B-18: 1996 kg


ranks for Take Off power available (if same power the older)
Manchester: 4020 HP
B-26: 4000 HP
PV-1: 4000 HP
A-26: 4000 HP
PV-2: 4000 HP
Ki-67: 3800
Tu-2: 3700 PS*
G4M: 3650*
P1Y: 3600
Wellington: 3450 HP

* idk if japanese use HP or PS if japanese use HP invert the rank


ranks for max internal fuel available, excluding tanks in bomb bay (if same the older)
G4M: 6490 l
Yer-2: 5160 kg of kerosene
P1Y: 5537 l
Manchester: 5273 l
B-25: 4879 l
PV-2: 4024 l
Ki-67: 3886 l
Il-4: 3855 l
Whitley: 3805 l
B-26: 3793 l

ranks by production (recce included) post war variant excluded, maybe
Wellington: ~11,500
Ju 88: ~11,000
Pe-2: ~11,000
B-25: ~9,800
He 111: ~7,600
A-20: ~7,000
DB-3/Il-4: ~6,800
SB: ~6,500
Blenheim: ~5,500
B-26: ~5,200

 

[macguba]

It's noticeable that the 'big four' in terms of production barely feature in the other three lists:

Wellington appears twice, low down
Ju88 never
Pe2 never
B25 twice, middling

It is interesting to see how various aircraft compare in various categories, as long as you remember that things like maximum bomb load, power and fuel, when isolated from context, are utterly irrelevant when trying to figure out whether an aircraft is any good or not.

An of course the best of them all (Mossie) doesn't appear at all.

 

[pbehn]

It's noticeable that the 'big four' in terms of production barely feature in the other three lists:

Wellington appears twice, low down
Ju88 never
Pe2 never
B25 twice, middling

It is interesting to see how various aircraft compare in various categories, as long as you remember that things like maximum bomb load, power and fuel, when isolated from context, are utterly irrelevant when trying to figure out whether an aircraft is any good or not.

An of course the best of them all (Mossie) doesn't appear at all.

The Wellington had many uses which weren't as a bomber, its successor hardly ever gets a mention at all, the Warwick found a niche in air sea rescue, not glamourous but many young men were glad of it. The RAF didn't need it as a bomber but it would certainly have been a better bomber than a He 111.

 

[Shortround6]

The American B-25 and B-26 may not have had anywhere near the listed internal bomb loads.
Both planes were often listed at 5200lbs but that consisted of two 1600lb bombs and a 2000lb torpedo that was external. B-25 could also carry eight 250lb bombs under the wing in many models.
Common internal loads for the B-25 were six 500lb bombs or three 1000lb bombs. It didn't matter what the max load was listed at, that is what the racks held.
B-26 could hold 4000lbs internal. Two 2000lb bombs, four 1000lb, eight 500lb, sixteen 250lb or thirty 100lb bombs. Later versions had the rear bomb bay deleted and while it would still hold the first two combinations the smaller bombs fell to six 500lb, ten 250lb or twenty 100lb bombs. Adjust fuel as needed. The B-26 never got under wing racks.

I might suggest bringing in the A-26 though.

 

[Vincenzo]

The American B-25 and B-26 may not have had anywhere near the listed internal bomb loads.
Both planes were often listed at 5200lbs but that consisted of two 1600lb bombs and a 2000lb torpedo that was external. B-25 could also carry eight 250lb bombs under the wing in many models.
Common internal loads for the B-25 were six 500lb bombs or three 1000lb bombs. It didn't matter what the max load was listed at, that is what the racks held.
B-26 could hold 4000lbs internal. Two 2000lb bombs, four 1000lb, eight 500lb, sixteen 250lb or thirty 100lb bombs. Later versions had the rear bomb bay deleted and while it would still hold the first two combinations the smaller bombs fell to six 500lb, ten 250lb or twenty 100lb bombs. Adjust fuel as needed. The B-26 never got under wing racks.

I might suggest bringing in the A-26 though.

The B-25 can load in the bomb bay 2x1600 + 2x1000 + 2x500 lbs for a total of 6200 lbs
the B-26 can load in the bomb bays 4x1000 + 6x300 lbs for a total of 5800 lbs
this are not common load this are the max load of the bays

edited the 2nd line bomber load was for the B-26

 

[Shortround6]

They are very uncommon loads.

The 2x1600 + 2x1000 + 2x500 lbs for a total of 6200 lbs load requires not only the 1600lb AP bomb, (not really all that common) but 1000lb and 500lb SAP bombs, not GP bombs.

SInce all three bombs are going to have different trajectories after dropping and since they have to dropped from at least a medium altitude (7000ft or above) to penetrate the rated amount of armor it seems a rather pointless load,

See : https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Aircraft/B-25H_Bomb_Chart.pdf

For a variety of B-25 loads. The GP bombs instead of AP or semi-AP seem to suck up a lot of volume.

The B-26 manual that is commonly available online is from March of 1942 and the 1600lb hadn't been adopted yet.
The manual is also for the early B-26s with few guns and little ammunition.

With the decision to send the B-26s to NA and Europe the use of the 1600lb bomb in the B-26 became rather pointless as the Germans and Italians had very few ships that need such a bomb to attack.

 

[Vincenzo]

Shortround6 i know that the AP/SAP are smaller of the same weight GP/HE bombs, and the AP/SAP load were uncommon, but the maximum is the maximum
actually i would have preferred listing the maximum load only with HE/GP bombs but not ever we have like the B-25 a bomb load chart
if i find enough data i ranking the twin bomb load with homogeneus load (i'm working for a load of 200/250 kg bombs)

the 2nd line load was for the B-26 i mistyped,
as i'm aware the B-26 can load 2 x1600 (or 2x 2000) lbs bombs in the larger bay and to 6 x 300 pounds bomb in smaller, the smaller bay was later abbandoned

 

[slaterat]

I would have to say the best twin engine bomber of the war is the Mosquito, it definitely would be on any" best of list."

 

[Shortround6]

I can't think of any other nation that used an armor piercing bomb in so many specifications or theoretical load outs.
Most other countries had 500 & 1000 lb bombs of GP, SAP and AP types (or the metric equivalent. 250-500KG) and some had even heavier.

The Americans seem to have spent more time figuring out how to fit the 1600lb into bomb-bays and how to list the results than they did actually dropping the things

It gives a rather skewed impression of American bomber capabilities. Like Dauntlesses with 2250lb bomb loads

Unless you needed to penetrate 4-5 in of armor steel deck or plating it was actually a pretty useless bomb.

The B-25, unless carrying a strange combination of AP bombs was pretty much good for 3000lb in the bomb bay.

 

[wlewisiii]

A-20? At work, so no numbers handy but I'd think it should be listed.

 

[Shortround6]

It is listed, but since it's bomb load was small and it didn't carry much fuel it only shows up in the production chart. Most had 3200hp for take-off although some late ones got 3400hp.

 

[Admiral Beez]

ranks for max internal (and enclosed) bomb load (if same weight smaller bomb preference, if again same the older)

I don't know if max internal bomb load is the most important factor for twin engined bombers, especially if your Air Force has significant numbers of four engined bombers. The Mosquito doesn't need a heavy bomb load because it's operating as a pathfinder for the Lancasters and Halifaxes coming from behind.

I would have to say the best twin engine bomber of the war is the Mosquito, it definitely would be on any" best of list."

Agreed.

In the Battle of Britain, certainly a heavier bombload would have been useful, but survivability in a fighter dense environment would be more so. Japanese bombers didn't need more bombs, but they needed more protection and guns. Look at the Do-217 of 1942 onwards, armed with a total of six machine guns, half that of the B-25 of the same era.

 

[Vincenzo]

ranked for max internal load of 200/250 kg bombs GP/HE, all load at the nominal weight of bombs not at real
Manchester 16x227, my supposition
Wellington 9x227
He 111, Do 217, Yer-2 8x250
B-26 8x227
Leo 451 7x200
B-25, A-26, PV-1, PV-2 6x227

lack of data
the MB.210 can load 1,600 kg but afaik this is 1x1000 and 3 x200 kg, idk how many 200 kg bombs can loads w/o the 1000 kg bomb. 3rd EDIT actually the french had not 1,000 kg bombs in WW2, the source (Dassault site) or is in wrong or refers to old bombs obsoete
the B-18 can load ~2,000 kg i've no idea with what bombs load
EDIT: i miss the two engine variant of SM.79, the italian (3 engine) variant can load 5x250, and this is also the absolute max load, but the two engine with Jumo commonly is reported with a 1,500 kg of max load


2nd EDIT i deleted the "possible" capable PZL.37 because of its 20 bombs load, 16 were in wings bays, that had not the volume for larger bombs