The Germans needed a better tactical bomber in 1942 (2 Viewers)

[andy1967]

But the thing is of course, by 1944 it's way too late for the Germans. Stalingrad and Second El Alamein are both in late 1942. They need a bomber (and an at least medium-range fighter) by that time, or not very long after.

Could the jets have really been made ready for large scale tactical and operational use, in any role, in early 1943? Was it just politics that slowed their arrival or technical problems with turbines etc.?

In an article written by Walter J Boyne in May 1940 Goering orded all research into jet engines to be stopped.

 

[Dr. Odendahl]

Tactical bombers usually have the short range
Jokes aside, adding more fuel on the Fw 190 was easy, both internally and externally, including the wing tanks as on the 190G.


FWIW, seems like the MTT have had far better success with the wooden wings for the Me 163, than the FW for the Ta 154. Perhaps MTT's approach was better and more resilient to the dubious availability and quality of glue?


A properly bombed-up Ju-88/-188 will be one very slow bomber, even if powered by the best engines Germans had in 1942/43 (that is basically the BMW 801).

Thanks. This is a really good discussion, and I'm learning a lot. I've run out of reading time for now, but I'll come back to this later. Really interesting information.

 

[Howard Gibson]

But the thing is of course, by 1944 it's way too late for the Germans. Stalingrad and Second El Alamein are both in late 1942. They need a bomber (and an at least medium-range fighter) by that time, or not very long after.

Could the jets have really been made ready for large scale tactical and operational use, in any role, in early 1943? Was it just politics that slowed their arrival or technical problems with turbines etc.?

The Germans did not have the resources to make turbines reliable at high exhaust temperatures.

At El Alamein, the Bf109Fs were superior to anything the allies had, and the Ju88s were excellent medium bombers. Ju87s were effective if escorted effectively. What they lacked were numbers and fuel. Their communications were extended and under relentless attack. By this time, the attackers were Beaufighters, not Fairey Swordfish.

Ask yourself how the Fairey Swordfish managed to be the most successful torpedo bomber of WWII.

 

[z42]

The Germans did not have the resources to make turbines reliable at high exhaust temperatures.

Arguably, they had. They just chose to not allocate sufficient quantities to the jet program. See The Germans needed a better tactical bomber in 1942 and links therein.

 

[Dimlee]

A bombed-up Me 262 is also a contender. Plus, it has some guns aboard, unlike the Arado, and even rockets.
But, yes, neither of these were a factor in 1943, let alone in 1942 (ie. for the needs of this thread).

You are right, of course, Ar 234 was not a factor in 1943. I think that it could become a factor if RLM (and then Arado, under RLM's directive) took certain actions - those that were within their capability. For example, more and earlier focus on Jumo 004B issues (Max Bentele, who solved them, was always available for RLM) and the distribution of orders between the factories, freeing up Arado's production capacity for a new aircraft, etc.

The thread's author asked these questions in the first post:
1. Could they have done it? (...benefited from either a significantly faster or maybe better armed light or medium bomber...)
2. Were there any promising designs that they ignored?
3. Did they put too much emphasis on the jets?

After quickly going through the information on the Ar 234 available for me now, my answers are:
1. They could.
2. There were some, and Ar 234 was the most promising for the tactical bomber role, IMHO. They did not ignore it completely, but did not prioritise.
3. Too little, if to speak about the Ar 234.

 

[Dimlee]

Reading now more about Ar 234, I discovered interesting things that I missed in my earlier readings years ago.
For example:
1. Arado factories manufactured He 177 since 1941 and until... summer 1944.
2. The project timeline (pathetically slow one!): Oct 1940 - initial design submission to RLM by Hans Rebeski, Aug 1941 - takeover by Walter Blume, Mar 1942 - presentation of the refined design to RLM, Apr 1942 - contract for six prototypes, Autumn 1942 - construction of V1 prototype began, Feb 1943 - engines installed on V1, May 1943 - static testing, July 1943 - the first flight.
3. Jumo 004B (rightly criticised for its short service life) was several times cheaper than many piston engines. After a quick research, I got these numbers (correct me if I'm wrong):

Engine	Cost (RM)	Man-hours
Jumo 004B	10,000	375 to 500
BMW 801	40,000	1,500 to 2,000
DB 605	35,000	1,200 to 1,500
Jumo 213	45,000-50,000	1,800?

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The Germans did not have the resources to make turbines reliable at high exhaust temperatures.

At El Alamein, the Bf109Fs were superior to anything the allies had, and the Ju88s were excellent medium bombers. Ju87s were effective if escorted effectively.

I don't think this is borne out by the operational data. In fact, a lot of it was posted here in another thread somewhere, I can dredge it up. But I'll post a couple of quick examples below.

In early 1942, the Bf 109F was clearly vastly superior to all the Allied fighters, as demonstrated by very skewed loss ratios in favor of the Luftwaffe each time they engaged. By the point of Second El Alamein however, the Bf 109F4 was no longer dominant or even superior. The Spitfire Vb and Vc and P-40F / Kittyhawk II in particular were more than holding their own. The 109F4s were in fact starting to be being replaced by 109G2s by this time.

The Ju 87 was no longer effective at 2nd El Alamein, taking losses even with escorts, and when attacked routinely discharged their ordinance before reaching their target in order to avoid being destroyed.

The Ju 88 took very heavy losses almost every time they were used all through 1942 and was really no longer sustainable as a daytime bomber in Theater by that point. At least not in North Africa or the Mediterranean.

So some review, Second Battle of El Alamein started Oct 24 1942. Let's go through the first few days of air combat. I'll only count 'confirmed' claims and actual losses.

Oct 24 1942, DAF and Luftwaffe clashed several times. DAF 'confirmed' claims were limited to 2 Bf 109s (1 by a Hurricane IIc from 1 SAAF, one by a Hurricane IIc from 33 RAF).
Allied losses were 4 x Hurricane IIc (one lost in a collision), 1 x Tomahawk IIb, 1 x Spitfire V, 4 x Boston III (all to flak), 1 x Baltimore III, 1 x Bisley, and 2 x B-25s (one to a collision). So 6 Fighters and 8 bombers.
Axis losses were 4 x Bf 109 (two 109F-4, two 109E-7 Jabos), and 2 x MC 202. So 6 fighters.

Oct 25 1942, DAF and Luftwaffe pilots clashed several times.
British Spitfire pilots from 145, 601 and 92 Sqns clashed with Bf 109s and MC 202s over El Alamein, with both sides executing fighter sweeps and escorting bombers, claiming a total of 2 Bf 109s destroyed and several damaged, while Kittyhawk pilots from 260 RAF and 3 RAAF claimed one MC 202 also over El Alamein.
US 57th Fighter Group's 64th Fighter Squadron flew 9 x P-40F and 3 x P-40K to escort 12 Boston and 6 Baltimore bombers against the Axis airfield LG.21. These were intercepted by Bf 109F4s of 7.8. and 9./JG 27, and MC 202s from 73 and 93 Sqn. US fighter pilots claimed 4 Bf 109s shot down and 3 damaged.
Allied losses consisted of one Kittyyhawk I from 3 RAAF shot down by a MC 202, and one Hurricane IIc crashed on landing. So 2 fighters.
Axis losses were 4 x Bf 109 (Werk Nos 7093, 13279, 8669 and 8764) shot down or crash landed (with damage 80% and 100%), plus 2 Ju 87Ds shot down. So 4 fighters and 2 bombers.

Oct 26 1942 there were numerous clashes between the DAF and Luftwaffe, too many to break down, but DAF fighter Sqns 3 RAAF, 112 RAF, 92 RAF, 260 RAF, 450 RAF, 601 RAF, 4 SAAF, 5 SAAF, 2 SAAF, 213 RAF, 73 RAF and US 65th FS/57th FG all made claims with Spitfire Vb and Vc, Tomahawk IIb, Kittyhawk I, Kittyhawk IIa, Kittyhawk III, and Hurricane IIc fighters. They were opposed by Stab II. 7. and 8./ JG 27, 7.JG 53 and 1. and 4./ SchG 2 all flying Bf 109F-4Trop, who claimed four P-40s, a boston and one Spitfire, and 73, 75 91, 95, and 84 Sqd flying MC 202s.
Allied losses were 7 x P-40s (1 Tomahawk IIb, 4 Kittyhawk IIa, and 2 Kittyhawk III) and 2 Hurricane II (one IIb and one IIc) shot down, for a total of nine to both flak and fighters. Plus several damaged. (9 fighters total)
Axis losses were 5 x Bf 109F-4 trop, 2 x MC 202, and 5 x Ju 87D-1 shot down or crash landed (7 fighters and 5 dive bombers).

Oct 27 1942 there were again numerous clashes between DAF and Luftwaffe. DAF fighter Sqns 73 RAF, 92 RAF, 250 RAF, 145 RAF, 112 RAF, 601 RAF, 33 RAF, 3 RAAF, 33 RAF, 3315 RAF, 213 RAF, 3 RAAF and 4 SAAF, and 64th, 65th, and 66th Sqn / 57th (US) FG all made claims. These encountered Bf 109s from JG 27 and MC 202s from 96, 70, 74, and 75 Sqn flying MC 202s, and 391 Sqn flying Cr 42s.
Allied losses were 3 x RAF Hurricane IIs and 3 x RAF P-40s (two Kittyhawk I and one Kittyhawk III) and one Baltimore III to flak. So six fighters and one bomber to all causes.
Axis losses were 6 x Bf 109s (werk numbers (7345, 8345, 10336, 7151, 7489, 10640, which included 4 x Bf 109F-4s and 2 Bf 109G-2), 1 x Ju 88A-4, 1 x Ju 87D-3, 2 x MC 202, and 4 x CR. 42. So 8 fighters, 2 bombers, and 4 CR 42s to all causes (but all of these seem to be to fighters or just MiA)

Thus in the first four days, total losses were:

Allies - 23 fighters, 9 bombers, 32 total.
Axis - 25 fighters, 9 bombers, plus 4 CR 42s, 38 total.

Axis fighter losses included 19 Bf 109s and 6 MC 202s.

It's notably that the US 57th FG P-40Fs were engaged in 3 out of these four days and suffered no losses so far.

Nor did these patterns change during the month.

What they lacked were numbers and fuel. Their communications were extended and under relentless attack. By this time, the attackers were Beaufighters, not Fairey Swordfish.

Ask yourself how the Fairey Swordfish managed to be the most successful torpedo bomber of WWII.

With respect to the very brave, very creative, very skillful and resourceful crews of the Stringbag, and also to the engineers who figured out how to deploy them with radar etc., and the whole enterprise of using these planes which absolutely made the most of that totally obsolete type, I would attribute that statement to very good (you might say even, 'brazen') PR and some 'creative acounting', combined with the fact that their greatest victories were a surprise attack against a fleet in harbor, and a lot of unarmed merchant shipping. Plus the fact that the US torpedos didn't work

If you count attacks on military vessels the most successful torpedo bombers would probably be Japanese G3M, G4M, and B5N, US A-20/DB-7 in Soviet service, and then the Wellington, maybe the B-26 Marauder in British service, and then the Swordfish. I admit i don't know the exact counts, maybe this would be good for a new thread?

 

[Howard Gibson]

With respect to the very brave, very creative, very skillful and resourceful crews of the Stringbag, and also to the engineers who figured out how to deploy them with radar etc., and the whole enterprise of using these planes which absolutely made the most of that totally obsolete type, I would attribute that statement to very good (you might say even, 'brazen') PR and some 'creative acounting', combined with the fact that their greatest victories were a surprise attack against a fleet in harbor, and a lot of unarmed merchant shipping. Plus the fact that the US torpedos didn't work

If you count attacks on military vessels the most successful torpedo bombers would probably be Japanese G3M, G4M, and B5N, US A-20/DB-7 in Soviet service, and then the Wellington, maybe the B-26 Marauder in British service, and then the Swordfish. I admit i don't know the exact counts, maybe this would be good for a new thread?

I said "the most successful". I didn't say "the best". A lot of success consists of being in the right place at the right time.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I said "the most successful". I didn't say "the best". A lot of success consists of being in the right place at the right time.

Look, the fact that they sunk a fair number of ships (military or otherwise) and submarines in those things, and even survived combat with fighters in some cases is quite impressive. My hats off to the crews like i said, and I do admire the aircraft as an example of British pluck and both ability and willingness to make the best of a bad situation. In fact I like it so much I've got a model of one sitting on the shelf behind me.

 

[Howard Gibson]

I don't think this is borne out by the operational data. In fact, a lot of it was posted here in another thread somewhere, I can dredge it up. But I'll post a couple of quick examples below.

In early 1942, the Bf 109F was clearly vastly superior to all the Allied fighters, as demonstrated by very skewed loss ratios in favor of the Luftwaffe each time they engaged. By the point of Second El Alamein however, the Bf 109F4 was no longer dominant or even superior. The Spitfire Vb and Vc and P-40F / Kittyhawk II in particular were more than holding their own. The 109F4s were in fact starting to be being replaced by 109G2s by this time.

The Bf109F generally was better than a SpitfireV. In the desert, the Spitfires had that massive, ugly air filter which reduced performance more. The allies had massive numerical superiority, and good supply lines. German quality was not enough to make up for allied quantity.

 

[Shortround6]

Reading now more about Ar 234, I discovered interesting things that I missed in my earlier readings years ago.
For example:
1. Arado factories manufactured He 177 since 1941 and until... summer 1944.
2. The project timeline (pathetically slow one!): Oct 1940 - initial design submission to RLM by Hans Rebeski, Aug 1941 - takeover by Walter Blume, Mar 1942 - presentation of the refined design to RLM, Apr 1942 - contract for six prototypes, Autumn 1942 - construction of V1 prototype began, Feb 1943 - engines installed on V1, May 1943 - static testing, July 1943 - the first flight.
3. Jumo 004B (rightly criticised for its short service life) was several times cheaper than many piston engines. After a quick research, I got these numbers (correct me if I'm wrong):

Engine	Cost (RM)	Man-hours
Jumo 004B	10,000	375 to 500
BMW 801	40,000	1,500 to 2,000
DB 605	35,000	1,200 to 1,500
Jumo 213	45,000-50,000	1,800?

But if the DB 605 lasted 5 times longer than the Jumo 004B? Me 262 held 2000 liters of fuel? good for how many hours?
Arado 234 held 3800 liters of fuel. Very fast with a single 500kg bomb, Not so fast with 3 500kg bombs.
Range with 3 500kg bombs dropped to 684 miles from 967 miles with a single 500kg bomb.

The Americans (and British?) were having a lot trouble with jet engine life in 1945-46-47.

First flight June 1947. Needed 22 engines to reach 150 hours of flight time? things were much improved by 1949 and in the early 50s the J-35s were lasting over 1000 hours.

 

[Howard Gibson]

Look, the fact that they sunk a fair number of ships..

Swordfish sunk more tonnage than any other torpedo bomber of WWII. If you wanted to torpedo stuff, it was good to be based in Malta. It was good that Italian fighters were still biplanes. What would have happened if the Royal Navy had showed up at Taranto with Albacores, Barracudas, Grumman Avengers, or Blackburn Firebrands?

Torpedo attacks against Italian shipping generally were launched at night. Could a radar equipped night fighter shoot down a Swordfish? The Americans had problems with Polikarpov Po-2s during the Korean war. The properly sophisticated night fighters were not safe to fly at biplane speeds.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The Bf109F generally was better than a SpitfireV.

The Bf 109F was generally better than the Spitfire V in their initial clashes over the channel in 1941, but several changes were made between then and when they were dueling over El Alamein in late 1942.

Spitfire Vb and Vcs in Oct 1942 were cleared for higher boost, were using better tactics, guns were improved (with double the ammunition on the Vc), they added bullet-proof windscreens and improved ailerons (replacing fabric covered for metal). Some of them had the clipped wings. Clipped wings plus metal ailerons meant much better roll rate at higher speed. Not sure when Bendix type carbs were being put in but I think some Spit Vs got them by this time? I could be wrong.

So an 'updated' Spit Vc by this point could out-turn, out-accelerate, and probably out-roll the Bf 109F-4, and was much more heavily armed. The only remaining advantage for the Bf 109F was basically climb and speed at higher altitudes, and that was slight.

In the desert, the Spitfires had that massive, ugly air filter which reduced performance more.

This is true but keep in mind, the Bf 109F also had to use a trop filter which degraded performance a fair bit, and the DAF fielded the vastly superior (smaller, lighter and less obtrusive / draggy) 'Aboukir' type filter, which began replacing the Vokes filter from June 1942. This took a while to acquire enough of them for all of the Spitfires in Theater but by 2nd El Alamein a lot of them (I think most?) had been upgraded. I recently learned that by the time the Spit IX started arriving in Theater about 2 months later they were all using the Aboukir type, none were fitted with Vokes.

The allies had massive numerical superiority, and good supply lines. German quality was not enough to make up for allied quantity.

This is true in general but one of the reasons I mentioned 2nd Al Alamein is that the Germans managed to put together quite a large force, they were not in fact heavily outnumbered especially for front-line fighters (i.e. when you consider that almost all the Hurricane II and early Mark Kittyhawk (I and Ia) sorties were as fighter-bombers by that point.

I would say though that to your point on supplies, the Italians were particularly constrained by lack of fuel and were only flying missions about half of the days during El Alamein basically for that reason.

I'd also say, per the thread subject, the Allied had much more effective light and medium bombers by this point, due to the Ju 87 and Ju 88 reaching their point of obsolescence for this theater, and the Italian SM. 79 and CANT 1007 etc. bombers having already passed it a year or so earlier, except (arguably) for maritime strikes.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The bottom line though is that in the Operational history in late 1942 you can find numerous cases where an equal number of Spit Vs and Bf 109Fs and G2s or G4s were engaged and the Spits came out on top at least as often as not.

Same with the P-40F/Ls even though they were probably at more of a disadvantage on paper.

 

[Dimlee]

US A-20/DB-7 in Soviet service

Soviet torpedo bombers were not very successful, to put it mildly. Yet, the A-20 was a better aircraft than DB-3F/Il-4 and, most probably, had a higher survivability rate as a torpedo carrier.

 

[Dimlee]

But if the DB 605 lasted 5 times longer than the Jumo 004B? Me 262 held 2000 liters of fuel? good for how many hours?
Arado 234 held 3800 liters of fuel. Very fast with a single 500kg bomb, Not so fast with 3 500kg bombs.
Range with 3 500kg bombs dropped to 684 miles from 967 miles with a single 500kg bomb.

Good questions!
Yes, Jumo 004B were "disposable", and it should be taken into account when doing comparisons.
Yet I wonder if any DB 605-equipped German aircraft could survive 5 times longer than the Ar 234 in the same time period?
Service, maintenance, repair - were they more difficult/expensive for this or that type? I don't know.
Logistics, production rates of the engines? Unknown factors for me.

Me 262 endurance - 40 to 90 min at low and high altitudes, respectively, with internal fuel. Drop tanks were used on recon and night fighter versions.
Ar 234 - 1,500 kg bombs max. Yes, a significant reduction of range and speed with maximum loadout.

Speaking about fuel and endurance time, it makes sense to keep in mind the availability (and costs?) of the types of fuel in the Luftwaffe, especially in the last months. Jet aircraft were at a great advantage in this respect.

 

[Shortround6]

Few things to keep in mind based off of the US Douglas A-26B
Internal fuel capacity, 925 US gallons =3500 liters.
Internal bomb load, four 1000lb bombs. Speed didn't change much with the bombs on board.
Max cruise speed, 334 mph at 12,000ft
Range at max cruise 780 miles.

The last is one of those "paper" figures. Doesn't seem to take into account warm up, take-off, climb to altitude, reserves or any changes in speed.
Yes, it is considerably slower than Ar 234. But it is not that much slower than a Mosquito.
Max speed (for 5 minutes) was 359mph (?), amazing what 3200hp at 13,500ft will do for you
A-26 is also carrying around a ton of .50 cal guns, ammo and turrets.

Tactical bombers trying to bomb from 20,000ft are of dubious efficiency. Of course trying to bomb from even 12,000ft is not a whole lot better.

I am far from convinced that jets were the way to go for the Germans for bombers, especially tactical bombers.
Yes the Germans did not have high grade fuel (or not enough) but using up much, much larger quantities of jet fuel for the same missions does not seem to be solving the fuel problems either.
Jets sucked up huge amounts of fuel at low altitudes. Not a good thing for tactical aircraft.
Ju 188 seems to have gotten some of the basic aerodynamics wrong. Not a big increase in performance with the higher-powered engines. Perhaps too much drag from the defensive armament? Large bombs had to go outside so the speed and range figures are a bit dubious.

BTW, A-26 was listed at 1710 miles of range at 255mph cruising speed which is rather ridiculous for a 'tactical' bomber but keep that in mind when looking at some of the German specifications. Fuel burn at 255mph was 139 gal per hour, at 334mph the fuel burn was 386gph. Fuel burn at full throttle was around 540gph hour but as said earlier, the throttle setting was only good for 5 minutes.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yes, Jumo 004B were "disposable", and it should be taken into account when doing comparisons.
Yet I wonder if any DB 605-equipped German aircraft could survive 5 times longer than the Ar 234 in the same time period?
Service, maintenance, repair - were they more difficult/expensive for this or that type? I don't know.
Logistics, production rates of the engines? Unknown factors for me.

A far better thing is that the engines were of short life, or that they were disposable, and still make the combat aircraft around them, than tho make the pilots disposable by seating them into the under-performers. German ability to mass-produce metal stuff was far greater than their ability to churn out the pilots.
As far as production rates - jet engines were much simpler than the high-performance piston engines. The jet-powered aircraft does not need a propeller, the fuel can be low-octane, or diesel, or anything else that is useless for the modern engine. There is no torque reaction - a thing that both low- and high-time pilots will appreciate. Yes, the throttles need some love, and fuel consumption was higher.

Few things to keep in mind based off of the US Douglas A-26B
Internal fuel capacity, 925 US gallons =3500 liters.
Internal bomb load, four 1000lb bombs. Speed didn't change much with the bombs on board.
Max cruise speed, 334 mph at 12,000ft
Range at max cruise 780 miles.

The last is one of those "paper" figures. Doesn't seem to take into account warm up, take-off, climb to altitude, reserves or any changes in speed.
Yes, it is considerably slower than Ar 234. But it is not that much slower than a Mosquito.
Max speed (for 5 minutes) was 359mph (?), amazing what 3200hp at 13,500ft will do for you
A-26 is also carrying around a ton of .50 cal guns, ammo and turrets.

This comparison shows why the jet-powered attackers were a good idea for the LW. A 360 mph 2-engined attacker is a cold meat on the table against the better Anglo-American stuff; a 400-450 mph attacker is a whole another league, and there is no piston engine that can enable that for the LW until late 1944 and the advent of the Jumo 213E.

Granted, 1942 is something else, here a 350-360 mph attacker would've been a boon.

Yes the Germans did not have high grade fuel (or not enough) but using up much, much larger quantities of jet fuel for the same missions does not seem to be solving the fuel problems either.
Jets sucked up huge amounts of fuel at low altitudes. Not a good thing for tactical aircraft.

Stick two BMW 801s on an aircraft size of Bf 110/210, and it will be sucking the fuel lavishly, too. Further, German ability to scrape kerosene, diesel and/or 68 oct fuel might've been greater than their ability to get enough of B4, let alone C3 fuel. The path not explored seems to be water-alcohol injection for the jet engines.

The tactical bomber does not need to fly all the time tree-top.

Ju 188 seems to have gotten some of the basic aerodynamics wrong. Not a big increase in performance with the higher-powered engines. Perhaps too much drag from the defensive armament? Large bombs had to go outside so the speed and range figures are a bit dubious.

Ju 188 carried over the aerodynamics of the Ju 88, bar the cockpit. It will need the next-gen engines to perform, and there is still a thing of the bombs carried through the slipstream - another obstacle against high performance.

Germans needed something far less draggy, and if it is still not a small aircraft (so something size of Mosquito, and not the size of P-38 or Fw 187), it will need a bomb bay.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I think the drag problem with the Ju 188 was the overlarge cockpit, which came out of putting all the crew in the cockpit. It also had a pretty wide wingspan.

A bomber that can make ~ 350 mph with a bomb load, some defensive guns, handles well, and has a decent range, is still probably going to be viable through 1943. It doesn't have to be able to out-run all the Allied fighters or do raids on it's own without escorts. That would be nice, mind you, but it may be asking too much.

But that's assuming the Germans can put together a longer ranged fighter, which does seem possible with the Fw 190G.

If the Allies could escort 300-350 mph bombers to attack targets and with an adequate escort, they could survive interception by Axis fighters, then I think the reverse is also probably true.

 

[Shortround6]

Getting a bit off track here but the A-26 was significantly faster than the B-26 that used pretty much the same engines, both top speed and cruise. A-26 was about 40mph faster at max cruise while carrying 33% more bombload and the result was that the B-26 had about 70% of the range while holding about 35 more gallons of fuel. Both could hold over 900 gallons so that part is not that different.

But getting back to a "tactical bomber" the need for a bomber to fly 700-800miles at a high cruising speed (over 300mph) the entire distance while carrying four 1000lbs inside seems to be a fair amount of overkill. But it seems that the Mosquitos with single stage superchargers were only about 20-30mph faster top speed.

The JU-87s made their reputation, such as it was, with single 1100lb bombs or one 550lb and four 110lbs most of the time. Yes, they could carry more at times or special missions.

It seems that something closer to the mid-point could be rather useful. The Ju-88/Ju-188 is not it. Size of the cockpit is not the problem. The plane was just about the same size (wing area) and weight as both the B-26 and the A-26. A smaller cockpit on the 188 would help (that two-story dorsal gun set up takes some explaining) but that is not reason it was so much slower than the A-26. It was barely faster than than a B-26B (large wing, not tilted and without cheek guns)

Back to the Germans,
What is the desired bomb load? A pair of 1100lb GP bombs?
What is the desired range? 200-300 miles for tactical targets?
What are the desired speed/s.
Is one twin 7.9mm or one 13mm gun manually operated enough?
The more guns or more directions they point in the heavier everything gets. The gun system in the Me 210/410 was a lot of weight for not much effect.
It could cover a large area but only one gun fired at a time and the German 13mm was about 3/4 the power of an American .50 cal and a bit shorter ranged (time of flight to target).

The Me 210 does seem like a pretty decent choice or something close. Move the wing up and bomb bay back or????