The case for/against more recognition of Allied medium bombers in Western Europe

[Conslaw]

It seems like fighters and heavy bombers get all the attention in Western European theater. Yet there were thousands of medium bombers committed there. Are they getting a short shrift or are their contributions just not as consequential as their heavier and lighter cohorts? If you have statistics to support your position, all the better.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Transportation Plan relied in large part on medium bombers such as B-26 to cut rail-lines and bridges leading into Normandy. It's hard to differentiate between heavy-, medium-, and fighter-bombers as to which planes were most effective. 9th and 12th AFs were both deeply involved in that, though.

 

[pbehn]

Reading the history of L/W airfields in Belgium and Netherlands they were frequently abandoned after attacks by medium and fighter bombers, sometimes as part of an attack elsewhere by the heavies.

 

[Schweik]

It was the same in Tunisia, the downfall of the Luftwaffe in North Africa hinged largely on bombing raids by Baltimores and B-25s. Also some B-24s used at low level.

 

[ClayO]

It was the same in Tunisia, the downfall of the Luftwaffe in North Africa hinged largely on bombing raids by Baltimores and B-25s. Also some B-24s used at low level.

Here's a pretty good article on the RAF and FAA's anti-shipping campaign. Unfortunately doesn't cover the USAAF.

 

[Donald Johnson]

It seems like fighters and heavy bombers get all the attention in Western European theater. Yet there were thousands of medium bombers committed there. Are they getting a short shrift or are their contributions just not as consequential as their heavier and lighter cohorts? If you have statistics to support your position, all the better.

The Mosquito was such a better plane for all bombing purposes that it is worth questioning why so many Marauders and Mitchells were built. Comparing survivability and accuracy, one can only surmise far better success had medium bomber programs been ditched entirely in favor of Mosquitoes.

 

[Mike Williams]

It seems like fighters and heavy bombers get all the attention in Western European theater. Yet there were thousands of medium bombers committed there. Are they getting a short shrift or are their contributions just not as consequential as their heavier and lighter cohorts? If you have statistics to support your position, all the better.

I agree that the medium bomber contribution in the ETO tends to be overlooked. They certainly did see plenty of action. I was quite struck, when I was studying the Spitfire XII units, by the degree of coordination of RAF Spitfire units and USAAF Marauder medium bombers during 1943. For example, from 41 Squadron's Diary/ORB 24 Sept 43: "We are kept busy now, much to the delight of the pilots. This time the wing led by W/C Harries were acting as escort to 72 Marauders again to Beauvais. On reaching the rendezvous the bombers were found to be 10 miles ahead, but we caught them up crossing the French coast S.W. of Le Treport. We were flying at 16,000 feet and on the left of the bombers. Two miles from the target heavy flak was experienced and one Marauder went down pouring black smoke. The target was reached and the wing turned 90 degrees to Starboard across the bombers, and in this turn 10 FW. 190's dived past 41 and 91 streaking for the bombers 3,000 feet below. F/Lt A.A. Glen D.F.C. led 41 into a turn behind them causing the enemy aircraft to pull away to the right, and the attack on the bombers was foiled. Spitfires V, IX and XII closed in from every direction, and a most glorious dog fight ensued, during which the wing destroyed 5 FW. 190s with 2 probables and 1 damaged." More of that sort of thing here.

 

[Just Schmidt]

The Mosquito was such a better plane for all bombing purposes that it is worth questioning why so many Marauders and Mitchells were built. Comparing survivability and accuracy, one can only surmise far better success had medium bomber programs been ditched entirely in favor of Mosquitoes.

Apart from decisions about producing those medium bombers being made before the mosquito demonstrated what it could do (and bomber commands scepticism ensured that it entered service as reconnaissance and, if memory serves (maybe it dosn't), night fighter before it was even used as bomber. After that production priorities might have changed, but it was no simple matter just doubling or trebling the production of mosquitoes. Consult older threads for problems with labour skilled in wood work and the problems of getting enough of the right kind of wood. One reason the mosquito was even allowed to be developed was that it used a niche in both materials and workers more usually being expended in building furniture.

 

[Donald Johnson]

Apart from decisions about producing those medium bombers being made before the mosquito demonstrated what it could do (and bomber commands scepticism ensured that it entered service as reconnaissance and, if memory serves (maybe it dosn't), night fighter before it was even used as bomber. After that production priorities might have changed, but it was no simple matter just doubling or trebling the production of mosquitoes. Consult older threads for problems with labour skilled in wood work and the problems of getting enough of the right kind of wood. One reason the mosquito was even allowed to be developed was that it used a niche in both materials and workers more usually being expended in building furniture.

When Hap Arnold presented the plans the Brits gave him after an impressive demonstration in April, 1941, five engineers discounted it immediately. Had even one considered a prototype, perhaps in the Detroit area which had access to the wooden Chriscraft Boat Works, a few prototypes could have been floated. conceivably, a couple of thousand could have then been built within a year. As it was, we borrowed theirs in 1943 for reconnaissance missions and secret projects. Elliott Roosevelt was a strong proponent of this development.

 

[nuuumannn]

When Hap Arnold presented the plans the Brits gave him after an impressive demonstration in April, 1941, five engineers discounted it immediately.

Here we go... This is covered in other threads as to why the US didn't build Mosquitoes. 1stly, they didn't need them or want them. Eventually, Arnold expressed his support for Mosquito night fighters and reconnaissance aircraft, but not as bombers. 2ndly, the British couldn't build enough Mosquitoes to satisfy their own needs and would have released the type for licence manufacture for its own needs before anything else, including US needs if it were built in the USA. Thirdly, the US military is not going to build anyone else's aeroplanes because it has excellent medium bombers in the B-25, B-26, A-20. US equipment was put into foreign service to bolster numbers, including the RAF.

The whole idea that the US could have and should have built the Mosquito as a bomber instead of what it had ignores so much behind US military doctrine. It is the figment of modern imaginations who have too much time to think about implausible scenarios.

 

[Marcel]

I'm wondering how they really compare, all those bombers. Like the group B25,B26,A20 and mosquito, could they all do each other's job? Was the mosquito really best in anything the others could do? Or did each of these have their own niche as well, giving them their right to exist?
Not to get in a nitpicking discussion about technical details, it's something I'm genuinely curious about.

 

[wuzak]

Apart from decisions about producing those medium bombers being made before the mosquito demonstrated what it could do (and bomber commands scepticism ensured that it entered service as reconnaissance and, if memory serves (maybe it dosn't), night fighter before it was even used as bomber.

I suppose you could look at the early mark numbers:

PR.I
F.II
T.III
B.IV

To see the priorities.

The first PR.I mission was flown by W.4055 on 17 September 1941.
The first NF.II mission was on 27 April 1942.
The first B.IV mission was 31 May 1942, the day after the first 1,000 bomber raid.

EDIT: 105 squadron received their first Mosquito on November 17, 1941. It was a converted PR.I, designated B.IV series i.

In the next few months 105 squadron worked up on the Mosquito, doing tests such as flying for extended periods at 35,000ft (4 hours at a time) to get acclimatized to flying at that altitude, testing the installation of the Mk.XIV bomb sight and testing the stability of the Mosquito carrying 4 x 500lb bombs.

The first mission bomb load was 2 x 500lb and 2 x 250lb. I suspect because short tail 500lb MC bombs were not available, at least not in quantity.

At the time of the first raid, 105 squadron had 8 Mosquitoes. The raid was flown in stages - the first took off at 04:00, another at 05:30, two more at 11:40 and 11:45. Later that afternoon a B.IV series I Mosquito was flown over the area for reconnaissance, diving to 380mph IAS over the target area.

The Mosquito that took off at 05:30 lost communication and was never found. So whether it was brought down by flak, enemy fighters or mechanical issues remains a mystery.

 

[Shortround6]

From Wiki

"The RAF received nearly 900 Mitchells, using them to replace Douglas Bostons, Lockheed Venturas, and Vickers Wellington bombers. The Mitchell entered active RAF service on 22 January 1943. At first, it was used to bomb targets in occupied Europe. After the Normandy invasion, the RAF and France used Mitchells in support of the Allies in Europe. Several squadrons moved to forward airbases on the continent. The USAAF did not use the B-25 in combat in the European theater of operations. "

Fit that into the Americans should have built Mosquitos starting in 1941 as you will.

 

[Mike Williams]

From Wiki

"The RAF received nearly 900 Mitchells, using them to replace Douglas Bostons, Lockheed Venturas, and Vickers Wellington bombers. The Mitchell entered active RAF service on 22 January 1943. At first, it was used to bomb targets in occupied Europe. After the Normandy invasion, the RAF and France used Mitchells in support of the Allies in Europe. Several squadrons moved to forward airbases on the continent. The USAAF did not use the B-25 in combat in the European theater of operations. "

Mitchell Mark II, FV914 VO-A, of No. 98 Squadron RAF based at Dunsfold, Surrey, unloading its bomb load over a flying-bomb launching site in northern
France, during a 'Noball' operation. (IWM)

Shores & Thomas mention RAF medium bomber operations in their 2nd Tactical Air Force books. There must be books about Allied medium bomber operations in the ETO, however, I'm unaware of any. Any recommendations?

 

[Mike Williams]

B-26 first operations in ETO with 8th AF in May 1943.

B-26 units in the ETO (from Wiki)
Eighth Air Force
Several Eighth Air Force B-26 transferred to the Ninth Air Force in late 1943. The Maurders had been part of VIII Air Support Command and 3rd Bomb Wing.
25th Bombardment Group, (R), operated by the 654th Bomb Squadron at RAF Watton, England from 1944-1945.

Ninth Air Force
First Pathfinder Squadron based in Europe flew last ever B-26 Mission May 3, 1945.
322d Bombardment Group, included the 449th, 450th, 451st and 452nd Bomb Squadrons. Transferred from Eighth AF
323d Bombardment Group, included the 453d, 454th, 455th and 456th Bomb Squadrons. Transferred from Eighth AF
344th Bombardment Group, included the 494th, 495th, 496th and 497th Bomb Squadron
386th Bombardment Group, included the 552d, 553d, 554th and 555th Bomb Squadrons
387th Bombardment Group, included the 556th, 557th, 558th and 559th Bomb Squadrons
391st Bombardment Group, includes the 572d, 573d, 574th and 575th Bomb Squadrons
394th Bombardment Group, included the 584th, 585th, 586th and 587th Bomb Squadrons
410th Bombardment Group, included the 644th, 645th, 646th and 647th Bomb Squadrons

Since this is memorial day weekend, please allow me to suggest that we honor these aircraft and the men who flew them.

 

[Ovod]

From Wiki

...The USAAF did not use the B-25 in combat in the European theater of operations. "

Is that really true - Joseph Heller and Catch 22 races through my mind?

 

[pbehn]

Is that really true - Joseph Heller and Catch 22 races through my mind?

I think that in the strange world of nomenclature Italy is not in "Europe" but in the "Mediterranean"

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Is that really true - Joseph Heller and Catch 22 races through my mind?

Though Italy is indeed part of Europe, in WWII it was and is considered MTO rather than ETO, with its own theater commander, chain of command, etc.

 

[Ovod]

Aha... it's clear now, thanks.

 

[Mike Williams]

Three North American Mitchell Mark IIs, FV905 MQ-S "Stalingrad", FW130 MQ-A and FW128 MQ-H, of No. 226 Squadron RAF based at Hartford Bridge,
Hampshire, about to bomb railway yards in northern France on the evening of 12 May 1944. (IWM)

As I understand it, the RAF operated B-25 Mitchells with the following units in the ETO:
98 Squadron
180 Squadron
226 Squadron
305 (Polish) Squadron
320 (Dutch) Squadron
342 (French) Squadron