Top Medium Bomber

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Please educate me... I cannot understand why the mosquito is a medium bomber....

In my estimation, it is a kick-ass, twin-engine light bomber. Perhaps it is in a category of its own but it does not belong in the same category as the B 26!!

Because it could carry a bomb load of 4000lb and there were dedicated bomber versions which were:

Mosquito B.Mk IX: 1200 built
Mosquito B.Mk V: 1 built ( prototype only)
Mosquito B.Mk 35: 122 built

I am not sure on this last bit of info but I believe the Mossie could carry 6000lb over a very short distance.

Basically a Medium Bomber can carry 3000lb+ of bombs. This ofcourse is what I am basing a Medium Bomber off of. The only exception I made to this was the Japanese and Russian aircraft because they mostly had light and heavy. Most of the Japanese "Heavy" bombers carried a bomb load more comparable to a "Medium" bomber.

If you are going to only consider aircraft that carry 6000lb+ of bombs as medium bombers than the B-17 was only a medium bomber. Yes it could carry a bomb load of 17,417 lb but the bomb load was rarely above 5,071lb.

Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
Long range missions (≈800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg)

"The heaviest bomb load carried by a B-17 was 8,000 lb and the farthest it was carried was to Nienburg, Germany[8]. The largest bomb load carried to its most distant target, Marienburg (now Malbork, Poland), was 4,540 lb[9]. These exceptional missions anchor the two ends of the maximum bomb-load line for the B-17. All other bomb loads carried by B-17's over the Continent of Europe would lie below and to the left of the line. The average B-17 bomb load dropped in WW2 was between 4,000 lb and 5,000 lb."
Maximum reported B-17 B-24 bomb loads - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So no the only thing these aircraft have in common is not the fact that they have 2 engines.

 

[comiso90]

Comiso - you have a good point, its hard to compare the 2. What would you use to separate light from medium bombers, payload or gross weight? Would the A-20 or Pe-2 then be "light bombers?

So much of this forum is up to interpretation, semantics and relative definitions. I just go with the parameters of who ever started the thread.

Yes the B-17 often had loads of 4000 - 6000 pounds but that was on LONG range missions. The extra load was dedicated to fuel.

I woulda considerered more factors then bomb load before making the pole but it's not my thread (gross weight of aircraft, crew members) .. I just want to know what the criteria was.

.

 

[DBII]

I admit that I know nothing about the Ju 88. I will have to do my homework over the weekend. Right now I am leaning toward either the B25 or the Mosquito. I think that overall, the B25 had a larger impact of on the war.

DBII

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes the B-17 often had loads of 4000 - 6000 pounds but that was on LONG range missions. The extra load was dedicated to fuel.


.

Actually go and read the post again above. From actual USAAF records on the largest bomb load carried by B-17s over Germany and the range that it flew it on. It was only once and 8000lb.

The normal bomb load was 5500lb.

Dont take me wrong the B-17 is a Heavy Bomber...

 

[HoHun]

Hi Adler,

>Basically a Medium Bomber can carry 3000lb+ of bombs. This ofcourse is what I am basing a Medium Bomber off of.

Hm, the Ju 87D could carry a 1800 kg bomb (almost 4000 lbs), so according to your definition, it would be a medium bomber, too.

(Just because I'm amazed it could haul that much ...)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Hi Adler,

>Basically a Medium Bomber can carry 3000lb+ of bombs. This ofcourse is what I am basing a Medium Bomber off of.

Hm, the Ju 87D could carry a 1800 kg bomb (almost 4000 lbs), so according to your definition, it would be a medium bomber, too.

(Just because I'm amazed it could haul that much ...)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Technically yeah you are right. However no I would not count the Stuka as anything more than a Dive Bomber.

To me a Medium Bomber is a level flying aircraft that can carry 3000 to 5500lb of bombs.

I dont care how many crew members it had or the Max Take off Weight or anything like that because as I said there were dedicated versions of the Mossie that were Medium Bombers.

Actually I should remove the Ju 188 based off what I am calling a Medium Bomber because its typical payload was 6614lb of bombs as well as the Ju 288 which a bomb load of 6,614lb. I will make an exception to them however because they were developments of the Ju 88 (atleast the Ju 188 was).

 

[ccheese]

I had to go with the B-25. Under Kenny, in the Pacific, that airplane raised
so much hell with para-frags, skip bombing and delayed action stuff it tore
the Japanese a new one !

I personally believe it's a safer airplane than the B-26.

Charles

 

[FLYBOYJ]

On my rant again...

One thing I disqualify the Ju88, Do17 and Mosquito on is the fact they are all twin engine tail draggers - not a healthy situation, but you guys heard that from me before...

 

[drgondog]

Technically yeah you are right. However no I would not count the Stuka as anything more than a Dive Bomber.

To me a Medium Bomber is a level flying aircraft that can carry 3000 to 5500lb of bombs.

I dont care how many crew members it had or the Max Take off Weight or anything like that because as I said there were dedicated versions of the Mossie that were Medium Bombers.

Actually I should remove the Ju 188 based off what I am calling a Medium Bomber because its typical payload was 6614lb of bombs as well as the Ju 288 which a bomb load of 6,614lb. I will make an exception to them however because they were developments of the Ju 88 (atleast the Ju 188 was).

I think I will opt for 'favorite' and 'twin engine' aircraft (flying weapon system) in bomb carrying role to avoid the parsing.

I like the B-26 Marauder in the role of daylight, precision, formation tactic weapon system - it was extrememly tough with high performance, probably the best defensive armament (along with B-25), excellent range with varying payloads.

I like the Mossie for it's speed, range and payload at all altitudes, its versatility in mission and its radar signature relative to other aircraft. If the mission is tactical daylight, I like the B-26 a little more, otherwise I favor the Mossie.

The Ju-88 was one hell of an airplane and weapon system but it doesn't survive the same threat profile (i.e daylight raids over Europe against Luftwaffe) as B-26. The Ju188 in my opinion should stay because it was a twin versus 4 engine and was a very good weapons system - better than Ju-88 and equal to my choices above but more vulnerable in high threat daylight role, in my opinion

I like the Ar 234 as a 'best' because it was technologically the best twin engine bomb carrying weapon system developed (I am excluding the Me 262 in this discussion)

My favorite of all of these is the A-26. If I had to pick one that I like the most this would be it.

 

[Graeme]

I cannot understand why the mosquito is a medium bomber....
In my estimation, it is a kick-ass, twin-engine light bomber.

Historically your correct. It was designed around Specification B.I/40 asking for a "light reconnaissance bomber." Designed (initially) to "transport a bomb load of 1,000 lb, with the performance of a fighter, for 1,500 miles."

Its performance and bomb load just got better and better.

 

[glennasher]

I used to know a guy who was a gunner on a Mitchell during the war, and said the Zeros had a really tough time catching up with them once they bombed. I think he said he flew from New Guinea, bombing Rabaul, mostly (it's been 25+ years ago). He was a huge fan of the Mitchell, for probably good reasons. Tough old coot..........

 

[ppopsie]

B-26 Marauder;

As far as I know the Marauders were used almost sorely for the level, daylight precision bombing in the ETO. What were the reasons to provide additional bombing force to the main four engine bombers already in operation, and how were the Marauders evaluated in a whole?

My impression is that if it was to bomb tactical targets from medium altitudes, more precision, faster and shorter reaction time could be good factors but I am not sure. Economy could be another reason but there was no significant difference existed in the costs of B-17 and B-26.

I admit the A-26 Invader was an efficient airplane type.

 

[machine shop tom]

I vote for the Marauder. That plane was all business. Once it's work was done, they quit making them.

tom

 

[syscom3]

I vote for the Marauder. That plane was all business. Once it's work was done, they quit making them.

tom

They quit making them for awhile in 1943 because of the horrible loss rate during training.

Hardly something you would want for a bomber design during a war.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

The P-38 was smaller than the Mossie, but it had a good bomb load for it's size. It woud probably belong in a "light bomber thread."

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would not count the P-38 as a bomber at all. A fighter-bomber at the most. It was formost a fighter.

 

[pbfoot]

They quit making them for awhile in 1943 because of the horrible loss rate during training.

Hardly something you would want for a bomber design during a war.

I believe most of the accidents were the result of poor training and not the fault of the aircraft, its a myth thats lasted from the 40's til the present

 

[AL Schlageter]

I believe most of the accidents were the result of poor training and not the fault of the aircraft, its a myth thats lasted from the 40's til the present

Agree.

General Doolittle sent his technical adviser, Captain Vincent W. "Squeak" Burnett, to make a tour of OTU bases to demonstrate how the B-26 could be flown safely. These demonstrations included single-engine operations, slow-flying characteristics, and recoveries from unusual flight attitudes. Capt Burnett made numerous low altitude flights with one engine out, even turning into a dead engine (which aircrews were warned never to do), proving that the Marauder could be safely flown if you knew what you were doing. General Doolittle himself carried out some demonstration flights with the B-26 in which he cut an engine on takeoff, rolled over, flew the plane upside down at an extremely low altitude for a distance, and then righted it safely. Martin also sent engineers out into the field to show crews how to avoid problems caused by overloading, by paying proper attention to the plane's center of gravity.

The Widow Maker

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Agree.

General Doolittle sent his technical adviser, Captain Vincent W. "Squeak" Burnett, to make a tour of OTU bases to demonstrate how the B-26 could be flown safely. These demonstrations included single-engine operations, slow-flying characteristics, and recoveries from unusual flight attitudes. Capt Burnett made numerous low altitude flights with one engine out, even turning into a dead engine (which aircrews were warned never to do), proving that the Marauder could be safely flown if you knew what you were doing. General Doolittle himself carried out some demonstration flights with the B-26 in which he cut an engine on takeoff, rolled over, flew the plane upside down at an extremely low altitude for a distance, and then righted it safely. Martin also sent engineers out into the field to show crews how to avoid problems caused by overloading, by paying proper attention to the plane's center of gravity.

The Widow Maker

Great post Al - it all amounted to training and the same holds true today for those who fly twin engine aircraft.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Adler,

>I would not count the P-38 as a bomber at all. A fighter-bomber at the most. It was formost a fighter.

Are you aware that there was a dedicated bomber version of the P-38 that featured a glass nose housing a bombardiers position and a Norden bomb sight?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)