Top Medium Bomber

drgondog · Nov 28, 2007

syscom3 said:
Gen Kenny of the 5th AF (and later FEAF) didnt like the A26 as a strafer/skip bomber.

The B25 was considered superior in that role.

Syscom - there is no reason, operationally or performance wise, that the B-25 was superior to the A26A or B in any role... and certainly the B-25 was not considered as bomber in post WWII USAF while the A-26 contributed all the way through Korea, Bay of Pigs, Congo, Viet Nam..

What I am saying, is that as much as we all respect Kenney, I wonder about that statement and what his detailed reasons were? It's possible that something about PTO that made the B-25 more desirable for him but it shouldn't be 'skip bombing'..

syscom3 · Nov 28, 2007

drgondog said:
Syscom - there is no reason, operationally or performance wise, that the B-25 was superior to the A26A or B in any role... and certainly the B-25 was not considered as bomber in post WWII USAF while the A-26 contributed all the way through Korea, Bay of Pigs, Congo, Viet Nam..

What I am saying, is that as much as we all respect Kenney, I wonder about that statement and what his detailed reasons were? It's possible that something about PTO that made the B-25 more desirable for him but it shouldn't be 'skip bombing'..

The B25 (and A20 for that matter) had superior visibility for the pilots. The
A-26's nacelles interfered with the pilots vision. The B25 pilots said they wanted the B25's for the skip bombing roll for that reason.

drgondog · Nov 28, 2007

syscom3 said:
The B25 (and A20 for that matter) had superior visibility for the pilots. The
A-26's nacelles interfered with the pilots vision. The B25 pilots said they wanted the B25's for the skip bombing roll for that reason.

That has a ring of truth to it. in the ETO it was hands down A-26 because of speed and acceleration, although visibility was tough for any twin with R-2800s..

Civettone · Nov 29, 2007

What's negative about the A-26 was its high landing speed which meant it couldn't operate from the same forward bases as the B-25, and the position of its engines which seriously limited the side view.

My best bombers (for its own timeframe) would be:
1 - Mosquito
2 - A-20
3 - B-25
4 - Do 17
5 - Ki-67
and honorable mention for the CANT Z.1007.

Kris

plan_D · Nov 29, 2007

Contribution has nothing to do with a design; the F-22 is the best fighter in todays skies but it hasn't made a single contribution to anything. The Ar 234 was a more advanced design, and a league above the rest of the medium bombers - making it the best.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Nov 29, 2007

Civettone said:
4 - Do 17

How do you come to this conlusion. The Flying Pencil was outdated by the time the Battle of Britain started. It was still successful during the Polish campaign because of the quality of most of the Polish fighters.

It was a good bomber during the Spanish Civil War where it was able to outrun its fighter opposition but by WW2 it was obsolete.

By 1940 Do 17 were being replaced by Ju 88s and the production ended.

Pflueger · Nov 29, 2007

Newbie votes for the B-25, but would view the Ju-88 and Mossie as equally important regarding impact on course of the war (US bias made me pull trigger for Mitchell).

I took "top" to mean the most relied upon dependable = the workhorse. Would agree that later appearing models (blitz, invader, etc.) were "best" designs, but they were certainly not the bread butter players.

Civettone · Nov 29, 2007

Chris, the Do 17 performed wonderfully in the Battle of Britain, suffering lower losses than the Ju 88 or He 111. Its armament, range and bombload were sufficient throughout. It was also the cheapest bomber of the three, so costwise it was better than the He 111 or Ju 88.

It's also a myth that the Do 17 was removed from service to be replaced by the Ju 88. Production stopped because it was switched to the Do 217.
In fact, Do 17's can be found in a units strength list on all fronts right to the end of the war.

Ending production also did not mean withdraw from front line. The last 17z rolled off the line in March1940, but the withdraw of the type from front line occurred one near later when losses exceeded the number needed for a division (Geschwader). They where then relegated to special operations or to equip allied forces (such as the Rumanians).

I was doubting between the Do 17, 217 or He 111. But the Do 217 came a bit later and was a rather expensive bomber. The He 111 was too slow. All had a bigger internal bombload and a more effective armament than the Ju 88.

It's mainly based on Frantish's website: Dornier Do-17 Depot
Kris

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Nov 30, 2007

Though the Do 17 was known to be able to take large amounts of damage and handled very well I am a firm believer that the reason the Do 17 suffered such lower loss's than the other bombers was due to tactics.

It is a fact that by the BoB the Do 17 was no longer the "fast bomber" that could outrun her opponents (neither could the He 111 or the Ju 88 but they did perform better) so she was just mostly in low alltitude tactical missions and later on (after the BoB) for special operations.

If she had flown regular bombing missions BoB and beyond she would have suffered higher losses, possibly higher than the Ju 88.

Just a theory however...

By the way that is a nice website however. Thanks for the link.

Civettone · Dec 1, 2007

First, I don't see any reason why the Do 17 would have been used that way. Have not seen any sources on the Do 17 being used differently.
And second, in my book tactical missions over Britain would be even more dangerous than high altitude strategic missions.
And third, the Ju 88 would have been more the tactical bomber.

So I would turn that theory around. perhaps the Ju 88 suffered heavier losses because it was used in a more tactical role and thereby suffering heavier losses.

Glad you like the website!
Kris

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 1, 2007

Civettone said:
First, I don't see any reason why the Do 17 would have been used that way. Have not seen any sources on the Do 17 being used differently.

Go and read the website you gave me a link to. After reading that is how I came to my conclusion...

Civettone · Dec 6, 2007

What section?
The only thing I see related to your post is that the Do 17 was strong and well armored. (Yet it doesn't say the other two bombers were less.)

Kris

Civettone · Dec 7, 2007

plan_D said:
Thanks syscom, for saying exactly what I stated would be the response. The Ar 234 saw enough combat to be a proven design, it had no effect on the war, but having an effect on the war doesn't make a design - it's the design itself.
There's very few aircraft that had an effect on the war, anyway, to name the few: P-51, B-29 and C-47. No other aircraft on their own had an effect on the war.

I agree that one shouldn't take the effect of an aircraft too much into consideration.

And I love the Ar 234 but I think the only thing it had going for it was its speed. And that's all!!
Armament was weak: no guns (that 20mm gun in the back was never installed) and a measly bomb load of 1500 kgs. That's half of the other German medium bombers!
Range very poor, only allowing it to be used as a tactical bomber. That was of course enough for the Germans but that's not important. It's the aircraft as such which is being evaluated not the role it performed (see above).
Reliability and maintainability poor for a bomber, comparable to the Me 262. If not, then the Me 262 would be the best fighter of WW2 without any shred of doubt.
One person bomber leading to bad situational awareness and already aggrevating the very restricted rearward view.

I love the Ar 234 because of the bomber which it COULD HAVE been. With the new HeS 011 engines and a second crew member it would have been a fantastic bomber. In WW2 it proved to be a wonderful reconaissance aircraft.

Kris

plan_D · Dec 7, 2007

The fact that the Ar 234 was faster than its counter-parts made it more survivable, and a considerably harder machine to intercept. The idea of an unarmed bomber has been proven with the Mosquito, so the Ar 234 needed no defensive armament - that's 1930s mentality.

As the Ar 234 was designed as a tactical bomber, and in this role it performed well. You compare aircraft in their ability to do their job, not their ability to do every job. The Ar 234 was a more advanced version of the Mosquito and the best medium bomber design of the war.

Leave it up to the heavy bombers to carry the large loads, huge distances.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 7, 2007

Civettone said:
What section?
The only thing I see related to your post is that the Do 17 was strong and well armored. (Yet it doesn't say the other two bombers were less.)

Kris

I will look it up when I get home from work.

It might actually be a website I have saved in my favorites and not the link you gave me...

Civettone · Dec 7, 2007

plan_D said:
The fact that the Ar 234 was faster than its counter-parts made it more survivable, and a considerably harder machine to intercept. The idea of an unarmed bomber has been proven with the Mosquito, so the Ar 234 needed no defensive armament - that's 1930s mentality.

As the Ar 234 was designed as a tactical bomber, and in this role it performed well. You compare aircraft in their ability to do their job, not their ability to do every job. The Ar 234 was a more advanced version of the Mosquito and the best medium bomber design of the war.

Leave it up to the heavy bombers to carry the large loads, huge distances.

In my head I was also making the comparison with the great Mosquito B.IV. And like I said, I love the Ar 234 and I think it was the greatest bomber design.

But ... the Ar 234 was not designed as a tactical bomber. It was designed as a reconaissance aircraft (E-370) at which it excelled. As a bomber it had insufficient range, bombload and reliability. Plus, it may have been fast enough to dodge fighters but at take off and landing it was a sitting duck.

For those reasons and the ones I mentioned in the previous post it cannot be the best bomber of WW2. The Ar 234C which was going to enter service in 1945 was a major improvement.

Kris

Marcel · Dec 7, 2007

plan_D said:
Thanks syscom, for saying exactly what I stated would be the response. The Ar 234 saw enough combat to be a proven design, it had no effect on the war, but having an effect on the war doesn't make a design - it's the design itself.

I think the thread was "top bomber" not best and IMHO a "top bomber" wasn't nescesairy the best performing plane, but the one that did a great contribution to the war efford. Ar 234 might be the best one, but didn't have any impact at all, so is not "top" in my definition.

plan_D · Dec 9, 2007

Civ:

"But ... the Ar 234 was not designed as a tactical bomber. It was designed as a reconaissance aircraft (E-370) at which it excelled. As a bomber it had insufficient range, bombload and reliability"

As a recon aircraft it was never reported by the Allied forces, making it an excellent platform for a bomber - it was not even seen! As a tactical bomber (Ar 234B + C, as you mentioned) the Ar 234 had the payload and range to be effective. The reliability issue is something that can be discussed forever, the servicability of a plane can be made good with the engineers on the ground. I make the comparison to the English Electric Lightning everytime because that plane had a problem everytime it landed but the 11 Sqdn. + 5 Sqdn. seemed to always have 12 of the 14 in a squadron ready to fly.

"Plus, it may have been fast enough to dodge fighters but at take off and landing it was a sitting duck."

Here you are using the war situation for a bad point on the bomber design, that's not right. The design itself cannot be altered to defend itself while landing and taking-off, that's up to the ability of the defending fighters and anti-aircraft. All aircraft are sitting ducks during landing and take-off.

Marcel:

"I think the thread was "top bomber" not best and IMHO a "top bomber" wasn't nescesairy the best performing plane, but the one that did a great contribution to the war efford. Ar 234 might be the best one, but didn't have any impact at all, so is not "top" in my definition."

Top means best, it's as simple as that. You're bringing this into an English language discussion; top is the best in the English language - so my point still stands.

Now, for clarification, the Ar 234 (in my opinion) is the "top" (best) medium bomber of World War II. The B-25 (in my opinion) made the greatest contribution to World War II, as a medium bomber. The Mosquito made a massive contribution and did it better than the B-25 (in my opinion), so it's the best medium bomber with a large contribution.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 9, 2007

Kris I apologize. I have not gotten to looking it up yet. Maybe at halftime of the game tonight.

syscom3 · Dec 9, 2007

Plan_D is correct.

The AR234 is the top bomber, technical wise. Good payload and a speed that made it near impossible to be shot down.

Top Medium Bomber

Top Medium Bomber

Arado Ar 234 Blitz

Dornier Do 17

Dornier Do 215

Heinkel He 111

Junkers Ju 88

Junkers Ju 188

Junkers Ju 288

Douglas A-20 Havoc

Douglas A-26 Invader

North American B-25 Mitchell

Martin B-26 Marauder

Bristol Beaufort

Bristol Brigand

Bristol Buckingham

Hadley Page Hampden

de Havilland Mosquito

Mitsubishi Ki-21

Mitsubishi Ki-67 Hiryu "Flying Dragon"

Mitsubishi G4M "Betty"

Yokosuka P1Y Ginga "Milky Way"

Ilyushin Il-4

Tupolev Tu-2

Petlyakov Pe-2

Major

Pacific Historian

Major

Tech Sergeant

Lieutenant Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Airman

Tech Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Tech Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Lieutenant Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Tech Sergeant

rotartsinimdA

Lieutenant Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Pacific Historian

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads