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

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

Another one about to get beat to death -

First, Arnold just "presented" drawings to 5 manufacturers to basically ask "what do you think?" If you were a manufacturer would you want to critique or even give a positive critique of your competitions product? Arnold got one response.

Second and this is a big one - THERE IS NO PROTOTYPE WITHOUT A CONTRACT!!!!! Aircraft manufacturers just don't go off and start building airframes without some type of contract tied to a specification. Unsolicited proposals are possible but you'll find it's very rare if a manufacturer will build a proof or concept or prototype spending their own money.

Had this been a serious plan by Arnold of the AAF, they would have gotten money appropriated (which was starting to flow at that time), worked with deHavilland to get a licensing agreement and then put out a solicitation to manufacturers to bid for a contract.

 

[SaparotRob]

I'm wondering about unsolicited aircraft that made it. The only unsolicited design I could think of was the F-20 which didn't take-off. Perhaps in the the early days of aviation when neither governments nor manufacturers knew what airplanes were supposed do or even be.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm wondering about unsolicited aircraft that made it. The only unsolicited design I could think of was the F-20 which didn't take-off. Perhaps in the the early days of aviation when neither governments nor manufacturers knew what airplanes were supposed do or even be.

I think even the earliest situations between contractors and governments specifics were spelled out;

Wright Brothers Collection : U.S. Signal Corps Agreement and Specifications | Wright State University Libraries

Lockheed submitted an unsolicited proposal to the USAF that eventually evolved into the F-117A.

Lockheed Have Blue - Wikipedia

 

[SaparotRob]

I agree with you about procurement. I'm not too sure about how the Christmas Bullet got financed but were there any unsolicited successes?

 

[Mike Williams]

Nice photo of a 322nd Bombardment Group B-26:

B-26 Marauders of the 322nd Bomb Group line up for take off behind a B-26 (serial number 41-34959) nicknamed "Clark's Little Pill". US Air Force Photo.

First mission 14 May 1943 low level attack of a power plant in Holland.

 

[Mike Williams]

Another 322nd Group Marauder:

Does anyone know the restoration status of Martin B-26B-25-MA Marauder "Flak-Bait"? I'd like to see that when completed.

 

[Conslaw]

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.

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.

This is true, and as to the timing: by the time the US entered the war in December 1941, the industrial plans to build the B-25 B-26 and A-20 in volume were already well in place. Douglas was already looking at the next generation, the plane that became the A-26. The A-26 woulda, shoulda, coulda been available in quantity much earlier, sometime in 1943, and, though maybe not as versatile as the Mosquito, it was a more capable bomber.

 

[BiffF15]

Another 322nd Group Marauder:
View attachment 625322

Does anyone know the restoration status of Martin B-26B-25-MA Marauder "Flak-Bait"? I'd like to see that when completed.

Mike,

This link has some info stating 2021 & Udvar Hazy. However it's dated 2015.

FWIW:
Restoring the iconic B-26 'Flak Bait'

Biff

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think the B-26 gets undersold quite a bit. The 9th AF made extensive use of it attacking France's transportation network leading up to D-day, for instance. The 9th rated it their most accurate bomber, and once tactics were sorted it had the 9th's lowest combat loss-rate amongst bombers.

I've always thought it should have gotten more ink for operations rather than the "one a day in Tampa Bay" stuff.

 

[Mike Williams]

Mike,

This link has some info stating 2021 & Udvar Hazy. However it's dated 2015.

FWIW:
Restoring the iconic B-26 'Flak Bait'

Biff

Thanks Biff15! Nice write up at your link. The thing still has a German round in it! With 206 operational missions flown over Europe that thing needs preserved! I did see the 2015 date on the Smithsonian site and was wondering if any progress had been made since.

 

[BiffF15]

Thanks Biff15! Nice write up at your link. The thing still has a German round in it! With 206 operational missions flown over Europe that thing needs preserved! I did see the 2015 date on the Smithsonian site and was wondering if any progress had been made since.

A little more digging revealed it's at the restoration shop at Udvar-Hazy.

Martin B-26B-25-MA Marauder "Flak-Bait" | National Air and Space Museum

 

[BiffF15]

Of interesting note is the armor applied to the side of the nose. It's not apparent in the shots of the taxiing B-26's. Does anyone know if this was a battlefield mod or factory produced? If it was done in the field, that's a heck of a piece(s) steel to "bend to conform".

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Ascent]

Here's a good piece about 14sqn using B26 Marauders in the Med. It suggests that the experienced RAF pilots had no problems converting to the type.
Jet & Prop by FalkeEins: RAF B-26 Marauders 14 Squadron "Dominion Triumph" "Dominion Revenge"- Marauder Mk.I in RAF service

 

[nuuumannn]

The A-26 woulda, shoulda, coulda been available in quantity much earlier, sometime in 1943, and, though maybe not as versatile as the Mosquito, it was a more capable bomber.

It also lasted a lot longer in service. A-26s, or by then B-26s were in frontline service with small air forces until the early 1980s and by that time the type had seen combat in some of the unlikeliest places all over the world.

 

[nuuumannn]

I remember seeing the nose of Flak Bait year 'n year ago. I was excited because I had the Monogram 1/48th scale kit that had its markings.

 

[nuuumannn]

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?

It kinda was and wasn't. As has been posted in other threads, the Mosquito's time as a long-range bomber wasn't as great as is often portrayed and although it was fast and could carry a useful load across a good distance, it was used alongside other types more suitable in the long-range strategic bombing role - it simply wasn't big enough, and, carrying a useful load, none of the type's advantages, that blistering speed, for example, were of any real use until it came time to go home. It was as vulnerable to flak and fighters on the way to the target as any other bomber. Where the Mosquito bomber squadrons excelled was as low-level bombers. Their high speed at low altitude meant they were difficult to detect on the way to the target and very difficult to attack on the way back after dropping their bombs. These were carried out by the bomber squadrons engaged in strategic operations, as opposed to the use of FB.VI fighter bombers in the low-level raids that made the type front-page news.

It's also useful to know that US equipment, eg Mitchells, Bostons, Marauders were defined as medium bombers and continued in that role despite the appearance of the Mosquito in numbers from 1943 onwards, whereas Mosquito bomber squadrons were typically long-range or in the FB.VIs, as attack aircraft, meaning that the US aircraft replaced the Blenheims and Hampdens, etc as strategic 'Medium Bombers', whereas Mosquitoes replaced Blenheims as tactical close support aircraft (in role, that is, as that term wasn't widely used in the wartime RAF).

Mosquitoes were arguably not as efficient as medium to high altitude strategic 'Medium Bombers' as the US aircraft because the advantages of the Mosquito cannot be exploited, but none of the US types were as good as the Mosquito airframe as, say, night fighters, or strategic photo recon aircraft.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Mosquitoes were arguably not as efficient as medium to high altitude strategic 'Medium Bombers' as the US aircraft because the advantages of the Mosquito cannot be exploited, but none of the US types were as good as the Mosquito airframe as, say, night fighters, or strategic photo recon aircraft.

100% Agree - I think what many here miss is that you couldn't always go in low and fast - there was a time where you had to fly over the target and try to plop your bombs down as if you were throwing rocks over the side of an overpass. To do that you needed to slow down, and if you slowed down you better be able to defend yourself from all angles.

Larger bomber=gunners. IMO unless you're flying a pathfinder mission with no fighter opposition, you're putting the Mosquito at an unnecessary disadvantage.

 

[nuuumannn]

100% Agree - I think what many here miss is that you couldn't always go in low and fast

Exactly.

 

[Donald Johnson]

It kinda was and wasn't. As has been posted in other threads, the Mosquito's time as a long-range bomber wasn't as great as is often portrayed and although it was fast and could carry a useful load across a good distance, it was used alongside other types more suitable in the long-range strategic bombing role - it simply wasn't big enough, and, carrying a useful load, none of the type's advantages, that blistering speed, for example, were of any real use until it came time to go home. It was as vulnerable to flak and fighters on the way to the target as any other bomber. Where the Mosquito bomber squadrons excelled was as low-level bombers. Their high speed at low altitude meant they were difficult to detect on the way to the target and very difficult to attack on the way back after dropping their bombs. These were carried out by the bomber squadrons engaged in strategic operations, as opposed to the use of FB.VI fighter bombers in the low-level raids that made the type front-page news.

It's also useful to know that US equipment, eg Mitchells, Bostons, Marauders were defined as medium bombers and continued in that role despite the appearance of the Mosquito in numbers from 1943 onwards, whereas Mosquito bomber squadrons were typically long-range or in the FB.VIs, as attack aircraft, meaning that the US aircraft replaced the Blenheims and Hampdens, etc as strategic 'Medium Bombers', whereas Mosquitoes replaced Blenheims as tactical close support aircraft (in role, that is, as that term wasn't widely used in the wartime RAF).

Mosquitoes were arguably not as efficient as medium to high altitude strategic 'Medium Bombers' as the US aircraft because the advantages of the Mosquito cannot be exploited, but none of the US types were as good as the Mosquito airframe as, say, night fighters, or strategic photo recon aircraft.

I'll still argue that the Mosquito was the war's best long-range bomber, only lacking in numbers. It's low casualty rate matters greatly as does it's precision. The tactic of dive-bombing increased both positive factors and practically negates the use of high-altitude flak. In combined missions with medium, the other types suffered much more. Far too much emphasis was given to defensive armament, a shibboleth Bomber Command was reluctant to back off of.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'll still argue that the Mosquito was the war's best long-range bomber, only lacking in numbers. It's low casualty rate matters greatly as does it's precision. The tactic of dive-bombing increased both positive factors and practically negates the use of high-altitude flak. In combined missions with medium, the other types suffered much more. Far too much emphasis was given to defensive armament, a shibboleth Bomber Command was reluctant to back off of.

Well you can argue but it's been shown clearly that the Mosquito, although an excellent aircraft, was not a "fit-all." Long range? Sure, but what was it carrying and how far is it going? Was it able to attack a given target at low level? You weren't going to bring down large industrial centers with sporadic pin-point attacks. For the technology of the day you were only going to be able to do so much ay low altitude, although I somewhat agree about the your comment about bomber command. RAF bombers were under-armed and I bomb load was chosen over crew defense.