The best 2-engined bomber in 1944-45?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A4K
Colonel
Mosquito for me too.
woljags
Staff Sergeant
don't really see the relevance between the fact that the A26 was better because in was still used by the american's in the 60's it was a stop gap as they found it was all they had for the role it was used for,the Mosquito was British and had been replaced by the Canberra of which the USA switched to building under-licence later
Certainly the Ar 234 was a small aircraft. While it didn't have a bomb bay its centreline bombs were semi-recessed. The Arado 234C replaced the single Jumo 004 engines with a twin pack of BMW 003 engines pending the availability of more powerful individual engines such as the HeS 011, Jumo 004D or BMW 801D.
The Ar 234B belongs in the discussion. It is a 1944-45 aircraft and AFAIKT was in service from about the same time period as the A-26. As far as the Ar 234C speed goes: yes at low altitude it was probably faster than the Me 262. The Ar 234C was so powerful it could drive itself into Mach limit in level flight.
Aircraft such as the A-26, B-29 and B-36 look like technical triumphs. However their successfull post war use was entirely due to the fact that they were only used against primitive enemies unable to assert air superiority and generally not even able to defend itself with light radar directed FLAK.
At the close of WW2 one can see that the Luftwaffe was at the verge of fielding weapons the Soviets and for that matter the UK and USA didn't field till the 1950s. The USSR didn't have the ability, the UK and USA had good radar technology but still needed a few years to digest and reengineer what had been going on in missile development. We know that the dying Reich was physically over run but its possible to see that their weapons were within 1 year of producing a paradigm shift.
For instance the Wasserfall surface to air missile was already test firing. The radar required to produce a track lock tracking of the target already existed: the FuSE 64 Mannheim radar was only one of two ground based radars that could do this (the other was the US SCR-584) and it had been in service since late 43: no deployed British radar achieved automatic track locking. I have a great deal of information on the Wasserfall's intended guidance system/s and they were in a reasonably advanced state since many had been under test development since 1942. In the end they chose beam riding over command due to its anticipated greater resistance to jamming using and the Kulmbach/Marburg microwave radar system. The smaller Hs 298 "Schmeterling" missile, which was actually starting production used the same guidance systems as Wasserfall.
Wasserfall was a Mach 2.7 missile able to engage a 2G manouvering target at over 15000m (48,000ft) with a 300kg proximity fused warhead.
Then there were the radar directed guns such as the 5.5cm Geraet 58 which was remote controlled and radar directed, also close to production and certainly successfully in test. Finally the Luftwaffe had in fact had a proximity fused FLAK shells functioning since 1940, however they used a cold cathode thyratron vacuum tube which could only work passively (ie of electrostatic effects). This shell was not produced due to expected short war plus minor problems with range (about 2m) and some vulnerability due to moisture. The problems were overcome and the shell was ready for production in 1944 with a range of 4m-10m perhaps as much as 15m. In parallel a program to design thermionic vacuum tubes was also underway at Siemens. There are CIOS documents over at the CVBandt web site.
1 A track locking radar FuSE 64 Mannheim in service from early 1944, plus an microwave version
Egerlund - German fire-control radar - linked Marbach and Kulmbach systems starting production in late 1944 early 1945.
2 Had been test firing proxmity fused shells since 1940 and had an electrostatic system ready by 1944 that was entering production and was working (or may have had) active versions.
3 Remote controlled medium guns in the form of the Geraet 58 5.5cm (latter coppied by the Soviets for their famous 57mm AAA gun)
4 Radar Assisted light FLAK, a radar add on to the famous quad 20mm "Vierling guns". The flakvierling (20mm quad light FLAK) would have received radar
director AEG FMG 45 RETTIN for light FLAK between the guns. There is a photograph in one of Ian Hoggs 'German Artillery" books. It was for both land and naval use, I believe based on a Luftwaffe night fighter radar the FuMO 246.
The USA did achieve the proximity fuse and had an excellent track locking radar in the SCR-584 (from 1944 same time as the Germans) however the Germans were clearly catching up with the proximity fuse. They had been effectively radar directing guns with mechanically computed directors since 1941 since the giant Wurzburg offered this accuracy while the smaller Fuse 64 Mannhein radar added the abillity.
So, from the German side, there would be radar directed computer assisted light (20mm), medium (5.5cm) and Heavy FLAK (8.8cm). There likely would be proximity fused shells. There would also be surface to air missiles able to engage an individual target out to 45 miles with a Mach 2.7 missile and a 300kg warhead.
How is an A-26 even with its 8 or 14 x 0.5 calibre guns going to cope with this type of accurate FLAK, small compact easily concealed 20mm guns, that automatically calculate lead, falloff and based their firing solutions on radars providing range to better than 6m?
How does a B-29 or Mosquito cope with a SAM?
There are only two or 3 ways. The one way is speed, which reduces aiming accuracy, opens up aiming errors, makes interception difficult. The other way is intense jamming efforts, which usually only degrade accuracy and must work in conjunction with speed.
The other is stand-off weaponry.
So, aircraft like the Mosquito, A-26, B-29 would have been highly vulnerable by the end of 1945 and certainly by 1946 they were too easy to hit. The A-26 was only good for anti insurgent warfare.
Last edited:
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Blah blah blah blah Nazi wonder weapons blah blah blah blah
The reason it took till the late 50s for SAMs to work is it took that long to work the bugs out. Yet somehow Nazi SAMs and automatic blind fire computers work straight off the drawing board just like all the other wonderweapons. You ascribe performance for 1945 tech that wasnt even matched till the 60s. Plus Britain was working on an anti radiation missile and countermeasures. Nothing happens in a vacuum you cant have Nazi wonder projects without someone else working on there own wonderweapon.
The reason it took till the late 50s for SAMs to work is it took that long to work the bugs out. Yet somehow Nazi SAMs and automatic blind fire computers work straight off the drawing board just like all the other wonderweapons. You ascribe performance for 1945 tech that wasnt even matched till the 60s. Plus Britain was working on an anti radiation missile and countermeasures. Nothing happens in a vacuum you cant have Nazi wonder projects without someone else working on there own wonderweapon.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
soumds like Germany in 44-45
wuzak
Captain
While the Ar234B does belong to this discussion, the A234C fails on two counts - it wasn't operational in the time frame and it had 4 engines.
How accurate is "accurate flak"? How does it cope with fast moving low flying aircraft like the A-26 and Mosquito?
As for SAMs, I believe the Mosquito had a smaller radar signature than the A-26, much less than the likes of B-17s, B-24s and B-29s. Mosquitos also flew in smaller formations than the big bombers. I would think that the Germans would have wanted the best bang for their buck with SAMs, so sending 300kg warheads in big missiles (like the Wasserfall) against individual bombers would seem unlikely. Much better to get a hit within a tight formation and, hopefully, take out more than one plane.
I also think that SAMs woudl be less effective against low flying aircraft.
wuzak
Captain
Double post
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
While I agree Jim's assessment that the Ar 234 could be better placed in post war, I would have to go with Siegfried this one. Speed in all altitude envelopes, acceptable bomb load and range. Next and just barely below the Ar 234 for me is the Mosquito. Speed at this time of the war was the only defense worth talking about against enemy fighters.
I love the A-26 (WWII) but if to strip fighter cover from the equations it would be slightly more vulnerable than the above two. In deference to Jim I don't know enough about the K-67 to comment. The Me 410 could only survive at night in 1945, but would be a candidate for me in early 1944.
I love the A-26 (WWII) but if to strip fighter cover from the equations it would be slightly more vulnerable than the above two. In deference to Jim I don't know enough about the K-67 to comment. The Me 410 could only survive at night in 1945, but would be a candidate for me in early 1944.
Shortround6
Major General
Not only did it take the Allies until the middle/late 50s get some of these weapons to work, they were working on them with some of the same German scientists who were working on them in Germany during WW II. They weren't being bombed but they were working under the threat of nuclear war.
There were several veterans who had flew bombing missions over Gemany in WW2 and Vietnam, according to them those " primitive" Vietnamese managed to put up more intense flak than they'd ever encountered over the Ruhr valley or Berlin. Some areas of the Ho Chi Minh trail, and industrial targets of North Vietnam were very well protected.
The B36 was never used against any primitive targets, it was never used against anyone. It's one of those bombers that never dropped a bomb in anger.
But back to the origional question, i'm torn between the A-26 and Mosquito. I rather judge by RESULTS in that time period, not unfulfilled potential, or later use. So i'd say Mosquito.
The B36 was never used against any primitive targets, it was never used against anyone. It's one of those bombers that never dropped a bomb in anger.
But back to the origional question, i'm torn between the A-26 and Mosquito. I rather judge by RESULTS in that time period, not unfulfilled potential, or later use. So i'd say Mosquito.
Last edited:
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Lets face it the best type of bomber.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I`d carry that on to the 70`s and 80`s
drgondog
Major
Tyrod - the 'primative' Vietnamese were Not.. They had the unique opportunity to exist unmolested by White House Fiat and were equipped with the most advanced Soviet BARLOCK Radar/fire control systems - ringed by SAM sites, radar controlled AAA from 57mm to 85mm to 122mm and MiGs that could be guided from the BARLOCKs to obtain best tactical advantage.
Why wouldn't it be more intense and lethal?
Why wouldn't it be more intense and lethal?
drgondog
Major
That is a great 'out of the box' thought..
GregP
Major
I would have selected it if the medium bomber part wasn't there.
That "primitive" was a reaction to a post from Siegfried.
I fought the NVA, I never considered them primitive.
- Thread starter
- #39
drgondog
Major
Tyrod - I guarantee you that you are in good company with that band of Brothers that were flying Route Pack 6 out of Takhli and Korat and Ubon... until they went to Jail at the Hilton... and I definitely wasn't 'poking' you - just reflecting on what the 355th and 388th, etc had to fight against with both hands and one foot tied behind them in an ass kicking contest.
Off topic remark - I suspect only a few vets of any war we ever fought are NOT outraged at the thought of Hanoi Jane playing Nancy Reagan in the new movie. My only hope for Justice is that she wakes up at the Hanoi Hilton in a future life - and they don't know 'who she is'..
Last edited:
