The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


A consistent failing of all operational German medium bombers in comparison with USAAF types was their comparatively weak defensive armament and lack of manned tail positions. Even the more modern types such as the Do-217 suffered in this regard. I also question the logic of putting virtually all the crew in the small glazed cockpit area. I would agree, however, that the B-25 was not "vastly" better than the Ju-88. Exaggeration for effect, that was.
 

Blenheim was a light, high-speed transport converted for military use, so it's not really a competitor vs. 'proper' medium bombers, both in bomb load combat range.
 
German pre-WW2 propanganda claimed He-111 was passenger plane when it lew 1at time, and Do-17 was 'fast mail plane'. They were not.
Fw-200 was passenger plane, and it's militarized version was not as able as 'proper' contemporary heavy bomber.
 
As an airframe I'd much rather have the JU88 then the B25 as it was a by far more capable warbird
 
tomo pauk said:
German pre-WW2 propanganda claimed He-111 was passenger plane when it lew 1at time, and Do-17 was 'fast mail plane'. They were not.
Fw-200 was passenger plane, and it's militarized version was not as able as 'proper' contemporary heavy bomber.
Click to expand...

In the early-mid thirties the difference between Civilian and military aircraft wasn't quite so marked as just a few years later and it was only considered prudent to develop a plane with as much potential as possible to perform different roles so as to get the widest sales possible.

The Do 17 required quite a bit of revision to suit it for a military role.
 
He-111 had one significant advantage over Blenheim Do-17 - it was much larger, more akin to Hampden co. Therefore it was easier to mount stronger engines, more bombs fuel, to make it a better war machine.
 
tomo pauk said:
He-111 had one significant advantage over Blenheim Do-17 - it was much larger, more akin to Hampden co. Therefore it was easier to mount stronger engines, more bombs fuel, to make it a better war machine.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that had anything to with it being designed as a 10 passenger transport instead of a 6 passenger transport?

By the way the JU-86 was designed to the same specification as the HE 111.
 
In any event, its difficult for me to reconcile that whilst the German designs were military designs from the start....the blenheim somehow isnt......doesnt make a lot of sense for me
 
It is inaccurate to say the He111, Do17, and Ju86 were military designs from the start. The He111 and Ju-86 were designed to fulfill both roles and initially presented to the public solely as civil types to get around Versailles restrictions on German military aviation. With the He111, civil requirements were clearly secondary to the plane's military role and few civil versions were built; civil versions of the Ju86 were sold to a number of European airlines as well as South Africa and several South American airlines. The Do-17 was indeed designed solely to meet a Lufthansa high speed mail passenger service requirement and was only later modified to the bomber role, almost by accident. Of all German twin-engined bombers, only the Ju-88 was designed as a bomber from the start - which explains its clear performance superiority to all other German bombers of the early war period.

As others have stated, it was not uncommon for bombers in the mid-late 1930's to be modified from commercial types, and vise versa. Many planes were also designed with the clear expectation they could fulfill both roles. In this regard, Germany's approach was not especially sinister. What made it thus was the fact that the Nazis used it as a cover for the clandestine development of the Luftwaffe.
 
On a related note, does anybody have information about fly-away costs of RAF bombers? Mossie, Lanc Halifax are of interest to me, but toss any bomber's price you have.
 
The Blenheim had several design features which hampered its use as a bomber - it had a light frame and so could not take larger engines or payload - also no self sealing gas tanks. Not a good idea when you will be shot at. Should not have been used for anything other than transport or reccon missions in my opinion.
 

After moving the wing up to provide for a bomb bay the distance from the wing to the top of the fuselage is too small for a cabin so transport is out.

It was a victim of it's time. Designed well before the Hercules engine (or the Torus) the only way to get high speed was with a small, light aircraft. When the Civilian parent first flew, 7 months before the first Hurricane, even the Merlin was not available and the Mercury engine was only good for 650HP. There is only so much stretch that can be built into airframe before it becomes too heavy to be useful in it's early models.
Nobody else had self-sealing gas tanks in their bombers for the first few years of the Blenheim's production either.
 
Bullo Loris said:
For me the best bomber (light bomber) was Blenheim, for the big bomber the best was Lancaster
Click to expand...

Really? You consider the Blenheim better than the Mosquito, or A-20, or the Ju-88 to name just 3 bombers I think most people would consider much better? How do you define "light bomber"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Making the best use of Jumo 211 series?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
peceed
P
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ivan1GFP
I
T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
743
yulzari
A
Best Axis four engined bomber?
Replies
9
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Menu
Log in
Register