twin engined bombers.

[starling]

now,i know lots of twins were used for other duties,so what do you think was the best all round twin engined bomber of ww2.please do include other duties as well,as i think this would make good reading.yours,starling.

 

[otftch]

I would have to go with the mosquitto.What did it NOT do well ?
Ed

 

[KrazyKraut]

Ju-88 and Pe-2 imo.

 

[trackend]

Mossie, brilliantly concept totally went against the grain (no punn intended) at a time when stressed skin alloys was the in thing.

 

[parsifal]

I think the mosquito was the best twin engined bombe. Adequate bomb load, high performace, and tru multi-role. add to that low production costs, and you have a war winner

 

[starling]

i like the wellington.but how would the pe-2 or the tu-2,or tu-4.i am not up on russian aircraft,compare to the mossie.yours,starling.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think the best twins were (in no particular order)

Junkers Ju 88
Mosquito
B-25 Mitchell

these 3 aircraft were very vesatile, while I consider the Ju 88 the most versatile.

 

[Flyboy2]

Agreed. I actually think the Mosquito is a little better just because of the brilliance of the design and because of its speed. I don't know, Ju88 was pretty good as well.

 

[Tony Williams]

Mosquito clearly first - it had a huge payload/range and was so fast that it was extremely difficult for the Luftwaffe to intercept. At a time when the Lancaster and other RAF heavy night bombers were suffering 5% losses on each raid, the Mossie's losses were 0.5%. That made it astonishingly efficient, because it was necessary to replace the planes and crews at only one-tenth of the rate (and with only two crew, two engines and no guns, each loss was far less costly). In other versions the Mossie was also highly versatile, being as good a night-fighter as any in the war, and was used in anti-submarine work too (especially the Tsetse, with that 57mm Molins gun).

Second place would be the Ju 88 family. Equally versatile, but lacking the performance of the Mosquito.

I'm not sure where the rest would come. There were some good US and Soviet mediums, but I don't have enough information about their service records to make meaningful comparisons. It's important to remember that the strength of the opposing fighter force made a lot of difference to the effectiveness of bombers (as did the presence or otherwise of escort fighters). A bomber might do well in one theatre but get slaughtered in another, or if the circumstances changed.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I give the Mossie high marks in it's operational record and it's versatility. Although it light construction was a plus, it was also it's undoing in the post-war years. The Ju 88 also a versatile aircraft, but I'll throw the A-26 into the mix. Fast, modern, remote control turrets, and a great bomb load, it served until the 1960s.

 

[renrich]

The A26 came in late but it was a heck of a twin engined bomber. As a bomber, probably superior to the Mosquito.

 

[drgondog]

I give the Mossie high marks in it's operational record and it's versatility. Although it light construction was a plus, it was also it's undoing in the post-war years. The Ju 88 also a versatile aircraft, but I'll throw the A-26 into the mix. Fast, modern, remote control turrets, and a great bomb load, it served until the 1960s.

Joe - I was thinking with you. Having said that, if the question was best based on versatilty I would go first with Mossie, second with the Ju88.

The A-26 was simply a better weapons system than the B-25, and as a medium bomber I think it was better than the B-26, the B-25 and the Ju 88.

But the B-25 through mid 1944 was the 'do everything' medium for US, serving in all services and all theatres. The only thing it didn't do vs the Ju 88 was recon and 'bomber interceptor' simply because there was no need to force fit the B-25 when other systems were in place that were far better than both.

Obviously the Ar 234 is best 'future weapon system' and best at the end of the war on sheer performance vs contribution - but it wasn't around long enough to cause any problems.

 

[mad_max]

Ju-88 and Mossie. Both are "Jack of all trades". Maybe slight edge to the Mossie, but not by much.

 

[Watanbe]

Beaufighter? Could that be classed as a bomber at all or only a fighter-bomber?

 

[trackend]

I think the Mossies performance gave it the edge over the JU88

 

[starling]

yes,but did the b25-6,do anything other than medium bombing.starling.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

yes,but did the b25-6,do anything other than medium bombing.starling.

Yes - in the Pacific it did a variety of roles, low level strike, night bombing and close support. The A-26, B-26 wnet on the serve in Korea and Vietnam.

 

[starling]

so the b25 was a strike aircraft with loads of 12.7mm m.g,skip bombing jap boats,yes.starling.

 

[drgondog]

so the b25 was a strike aircraft with loads of 12.7mm m.g,skip bombing jap boats,yes.starling.

The B-25 role in the PTO was almost as legendary as the Mossie in ETO/MTO... and no medium bomber including perhaps the Ju 88 was as effective in the anti-shipping role.

When Pappy Gunn took out the Nav/Bombadier glass and replaced with nose and cheek 50's, and developed skip bombing techniques, it was the most devastating low level attacker in the PTO. It may have been the most important contributor to the slaughter of Japanese shipping and troop cariers in the Battle of Bismark Sea - which may have saved New Guinea.


It did not fly as a Night Fighter or high altitude Recon like the Ju 88 and Mossie variants

Small note - no others struck Japan from a Carrier.

Interestingly it lasted in the USAF as a twin engine Group hack along with the C-47 as primary cross country, instrument trainer, 'get your monthly flying time' as long as the A/B-26 - although the A/B-26 flew combat ops far longer than the B-25

 

[starling]

were the b25-6,ever used on radar equipped anti sub missions.what was the b25-6 range.did the mossie not fly in the pto.starling.