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

[33k in the air]

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.

The problem is striking power. The Lancaster could carry ~10,000 lbs of bombs to Berlin, while the Halifax III could carry ~8,000 lbs. The Mosquito could carry 4,000 lbs. That means to equal the striking power one one Lancaster you'd need 2.5 Mosquitoes, and 2 Mosquitoes to equal one Halifax III.

Add to that the bomb bays of Lancaster and Halifax could hold a wide variety of bomb types on a single mission compared to the small bay of the Mosquito.

 

[pbehn]

The problem is striking power. The Lancaster could carry ~10,000 lbs of bombs to Berlin, while the Halifax III could carry ~8,000 lbs. The Mosquito could carry 4,000 lbs. That means to equal the striking power one one Lancaster you'd need 2.5 Mosquitoes, and 2 Mosquitoes to equal one Halifax III.

Add to that the bomb bays of Lancaster and Halifax could hold a wide variety of bomb types on a single mission compared to the small bay of the Mosquito.

The missions by Mosquitos were completely different anyway, the whole point was to be detected and make a bang so that the population of Berlin were kept in air raid shelters, I dont know if any damage assessment was ever done, but assessments of the affects on production were.

 

[Greg Boeser]

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

The "strafer plate" was factory standard from the -25 block on B-26Bs and Cs. Not sure if there were retrofit kits available. Tannehill mentions that 12th AF Marauder units would field modify their B-26s with armor scrounged from wrecks.
Flak Bait is a B-26B-25
The taxiing Marauder is a B-26C-15

 

[BiffF15]

The "strafer plate" was factory standard from the -25 block on B-26Bs and Cs. Not sure if there were retrofit kits available. Tannehill mentions that 12th AF Marauder units would field modify their B-26s with armor scrounged from wrecks.
Flak Bait is a B-26B-25
The taxiing Marauder is a B-26C-15

Excellent and thanks!

 

[DBII]

Always a fan of the medium bomber. The last couple if years I have become a fan of the A20, Baltimore, Maryland, and Hudson bombers along with the British light bombers. They did the mission when there was nothing else available.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Those are all light bombers.

 

[DBII]

Those are all light bombers.

Yes you are correct. I failed to mention that. My wife was talking to me. I think both medium and light bombers get over looked.

 

[Greg Boeser]

In NW Europe for sure. The heavies got all the press. "Mediums were also out." was a common postscript on press releases expounding on the damage the heavies were inflicting on the Axis.

 

[Blenheim]

View attachment 625302
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?

In response to your query I offer the following:

US Medium Bomber Units of World War 2 - Northwest Europe
By Jerry Scutts and published by Ian Allan

I've had my copy for twenty years and I don't know if it is still available

View attachment 625302
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?

In response to your query I offer the following book:

US Medium Bomber Units of World War 2 - Northwest Europe
By Jerry Scutts and published by Ian Allan

I have had my copy for twenty years and I don't know if the book is still available.

Hugh

View attachment 625315
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

View attachment 625302
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?

In response to your query about books, I offer the following information:

US Medium Bomber Units of World War 2 - Northwest Europe
By Jerry Scutts and published by Ian Allan. ISBN 0 7110 2876 1

I've had my copy for twenty years and I do not know it the book is still available.

 

[Blenheim]

In response to your query I offer the following:

US Medium Bomber Units of World War 2 - Northwest Europe
By Jerry Scutts and published by Ian Allan

I've had my copy for twenty years and I don't know if it is still available


In response to your query I offer the following book:

US Medium Bomber Units of World War 2 - Northwest Europe
By Jerry Scutts and published by Ian Allan

I have had my copy for twenty years and I don't know if the book is still available.

Hugh



In response to your query about books, I offer the following information:

US Medium Bomber Units of World War 2 - Northwest Europe
By Jerry Scutts and published by Ian Allan. ISBN 0 7110 2876 1

I've had my copy for twenty years and I do not know it the book is still available.

Sorry, I seem to have made a bit of a mess with that, I don't know what went wrong, probably finger trouble.

 

[Mike Williams]

In response to your query I offer the following book:

US Medium Bomber Units of World War 2 - Northwest Europe
By Jerry Scutts and published by Ian Allan

I have had my copy for twenty years and I don't know if the book is still available.

Hugh

Thank you very much for the recommendation!

 

[nuuumannn]

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.

Several things at variance with the truth here, while overall the Mosquito's loss rate was lower than the big heavies, it also saw less employment in the role in terms of numbers, not only that but when the first squadron of Mosquito B.IVs entered service they were racking up loss rates comparable to existing types. It took a while for it to prove itself and again, as a long-range heavy bomber it was no more precise in hitting its target as any other bomber, having to rely on pathfinders, Oboe and Gee, and eventually H2S, with not all of these things being carried in the Mosquitoes themselves.

Let's not get our definitions of Mosquito marks confused here. The precision strikes the Mosquito are famous for were carried out by specific ground attack variants, not the long-range heavy bombers, in case you don't understand that. The use of bomber variants for low-level strike raids did happen but that didn't prevent the big bombers from doing their job; they were still needed. I also don't accept your statement "In combined missions with medium, the other types suffered much more" without evidence to back that up, e.g. specific raids, loss rates of "other types" and the Mosquito by comparison.

As for the claim of the shibboleth of Bomber Command being reluctant to back off of, as you've put it; just balls. Bomber Command had big bombers before the Mosquito and in order to carry out a strategic bombing campaign of the likes that BC and the USAAF was carrying out you need big bombers that can carry lots of bombs at once. The Mosquito was simply too small and to do the kinds of damage being asked of the bombers, big bombers were needed regardless of the Mosquito's capabilities, otherwise to do a given amount of damage over a given area you need more aircraft if they are smaller. The Germans learned the hard way that building big bombers was not easy and going for smaller bombers meant greater numbers of bombers available, but that didn't mean they didn't need bigger bombers, after all, what was the He 177 if not a big bomber? Twin-engined strategic bombers have their limitations. If you have the capability to build these aircraft, then build them and use them in the role they were designed for.

The Mosquito excelled at the tasks it was given, but that did not mean that it could ever have been a viable replacement for big heavy bombers. This is a myth that has been perpetuated in the internet age, like so many of the other myths that arise on this forum every now and then. Let's not forget, the Mosquito was accepted by BC, but it was limited in what it could offer, strictly speaking.

 

[nuuumannn]

The problem is striking power. The Lancaster could carry ~10,000 lbs of bombs to Berlin, while the Halifax III could carry ~8,000 lbs. The Mosquito could carry 4,000 lbs. That means to equal the striking power one one Lancaster you'd need 2.5 Mosquitoes, and 2 Mosquitoes to equal one Halifax III.

Add to that the bomb bays of Lancaster and Halifax could hold a wide variety of bomb types on a single mission compared to the small bay of the Mosquito.

Correctamundo!

 

[nuuumannn]

Let's look at the Avro Manchester, it was a twin-engined bomber designed as a medium bomber to P.13/36 as the B.12/36 heavy bomber specification was fulfilled by the Short Stirling. The Manchester had the exact same 33 foot-long bomb bay that the Lancaster had, which was initially named the Manchester Mk.III, yet powered by four Merlins could carry a heavier load across a greater distance than the Manchester and it was more reliable, but that's a different story...

 

[Greg Boeser]

The mediums did what the mediums were designed to do. Carry a respectable bomb load medium distances to hit targets of secondary importance to the strategic mission of the air forces. The mediums were easier to maintain than the heavies, were more maneuverable, and could bomb pin point targets better than the high flying heavies. They didn't get the press they deserved during the war, but they contributed to the final victory.

 

[33k in the air]

Correctamundo!

The striking power issue is exacerbated over shorter distances and/or particular load outs. The Lancaster could, for example, carry up to 20 x 500-lb bombs internally; the Mosquito typically carried 4. That means 5 Mosquitoes would be needed to equal one Lancaster.