twin engined bombers.

[davparlr]

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.

I would agree with this list (exclusive of the A-26). These were all very capable aircraft, and probably basically interchangeable. However, if I was to have to select to fly one of these in WWII, it would be the Mosquito, no contest.

 

[rochie]

mosquito and Ju 88 are almost too close call but speed gives the mossie a very slight advantage for me

 

[smg]

the Mosquito

 

[renrich]

My references show the Mosquito F.MKII with a VMAX of 370 mph (at what altitude?) The A26 is shown to have a VMAX of 373 mph at 10000 feet. I realise the Mosquito referred to above is a 1942 model whereas the A26 was later but as a ground attack plane or light bomber, the A26 IMO would be much superior to the Mosquito. The Mosquito however would be a little more versatile. As far as versatility is concerned, the A20 was a fine AC and overall would be equal to or better than the JU88. It was used as a bomber, torpedo plane, night fighter, photo recon, ground attack and lead ship.

 

[trackend]

Seesul will be able to give his opinion of the B25 when the Duke of Brabant's one is displaying this weekend for a large aircraft it is very manouverable and considering these guys are just displaying and not in combat very impressive The B25 definately cannot be discounted as one of the best medium bombers of WW2. I still stay with the Mossie but then I think it should be in the fighter bomber class. The Wellington is more my Idea of a British medium bomber that should be compared with the B25 and the B25 was undoubtedly a better aircraft the ony thing I would say that the Wellington could beat the B25 on was construction but Barnes Wallis's geodesic design (obviously derived from his airship designing days) made the Welli very complicated to manufacture.

 

[Vincenzo]

i vote for Do 217 here is talking for bombers not for "multirole" twin engined. mosquito it's surely fastest twin engined (props) bomber but the speed isn't all for a bomber.

 

[starling]

indeed,but why so many thoughts on the yunkers 88.bomber,night fighter with upfiring cannons and recon.what else did the fighter fodder of the b.o.b.do.if it did more,please explain in detail.starling. .

 

[drgondog]

i vote for Do 217 here is talking for bombers not for "multirole" twin engined. mosquito it's surely fastest twin engined (props) bomber but the speed isn't all for a bomber.

Vincenzo, out of curiosity which types of missions would you prefer to fly a Do 217 on rather than a Mossie, or even B-25?

Conversely which missions would dicatate a Mossie or B-25 instead of a Do 217?

 

[KrazyKraut]

I recall the Do could carry a very heavy bomb-load if necessary. It was also faster than the B-25.

 

[drgondog]

I recall the Do could carry a very heavy bomb-load if necessary. It was also faster than the B-25.

KK- that wasn't the question.. which mission say in 1944-1945 would you choose the Do 217?

Medium altitude daylight 'precision' bombing? Low level anti-shipping? Night area bombing?

 

[KrazyKraut]

Well for anti-shipping i'd say a Do-217 with Hs-293 or Fritz-X would be hard to beat.

 

[drgondog]

Well for anti-shipping i'd say a Do-217 with Hs-293 or Fritz-X would be hard to beat.

Yes it would. Is that it?

 

[Bigxiko]

I think that the JU-88, the Beaufighter and the Mosquito are worthy of beeing classified as the best twin engined bombers

 

[Kurfürst]

Mosquito clearly first - it had a huge payload/range and was so fast that it was extremely difficult for the Luftwaffe to intercept.

I am not sure about payload being huge - initially it was a mere 1000 lbs, with modified bombs they worked it up to 2000 lbs. The Fighter Bomber variants, if we want to include them here (since after all, FB VI Mark was the most numerous) could only carry 1000 lbs internally because the guns took the space in the bomb bay, the rest had to be carried externally, degrading performance.

The later special versions of 1944 with a bulged bomb bay, using a special HC bomb could carry a single 4000 lbs cookie - question though what usefulness this load had apart from nuisance terror raids executed from high altitude against urban centres - with questionable material gains, apart from propaganda effort.

Carrying a number of smaller 500-1000 lbs bombs of equal total weight, that would be more suitable for military operations (anti tank support, ground attack etc.) was not possible, however.

As far as speed goes, its only important as long as it can be maintained for long periods without seriously jeopardizing range of the aircraft - no bombers were travelling at maximum level speeds for any sustained period. And even when at all out level speed, it was doubtful that a bomber could contest in that with a fighter. Increasing cruising speeds sufficiently and thus narrowing the interception envelope for enemy interceptors could mean that the incoming bomber may evade interceptions altogether.

I am not even sure what the Mosquito has to do within these comparison, being a fast light bomberl, basically, and being more close in role and performance to the Me 410, Pe 2 etc. than actual twin engined (medium) bombers like the Ju 88, B-25 etc.

In similiar fashion, the Do 217 is an odd animal. It fell between medium and heavy bombers in size and payload capacity, a bit like the Panther, it was a medium in its roles, and closer to a heavy in size.

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 is true, but it is also true that in the night a, they faced much slower nightfighters burdened with AI equipment b, which concentrated on the heavies first and foremost, taking some firepower away from the Mossies.

However in the daylight when first introduced, the Mosquito suffered about twice as heavy loss rate at around 8% than the 'ordinary' RAF medium bombers over France..

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

Disagree; fast bomber versions of the Ju 88 (Ju 88S) similiar in concept and performance to the Mosquito existed. In its payload capacity the Ju 88/188 was superior at 3000 kg standard to the typical 914 kg carried by the Mosquitos; Ju 88s existed in all the roles the Mosquito fullfilled (bomber - Ausf. A, recce - Ausf. D, night fighter - Ausf. G, heavy fighter - Ausf. C, fast bomber - Ausf. S), but had more versatility as they were a dive bomber, torpedo bomber. Ground attack with cannon was also a possibility on the Ju 88A. Some other exotic versions (carrying tank canon etc.) also existed.

Moreover, the single Ju 88A version was actually that versatile (capable of dive bombing, level bombing and to be operated as torpedo bomber, with marginal modifications they operated as recce planes too), rather than just being seperate versions of the same basic airframe (ie. seperate PR, FB and B airframes produced on the Mosquito basis, but FB mosquitos could not to B or PR missions and vica versa).

So I would say the Mosquito proved to be an adaptable airframe while the basic Ju 88A was both versatile and adaptable.

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.

Very true. Often I see people drawing conclusions on technical excellence based on the operational record; but as you have noted, the op. record is effected by many many factors, and I would say technical qualities are not the most important ones amongst them.

Numbers, organisation, training, opposing forces are of far greater importance IMHO.

 

[Vincenzo]

KK- that wasn't the question.. which mission say in 1944-1945 would you choose the Do 217?

Medium altitude daylight 'precision' bombing? Low level anti-shipping? Night area bombing?

all of this i think is best Do 217, mosquitos are surely best in night fighter, recce role and pathfinder, b 25 in attack mission and versus boat (guns nose variants)

 

[drgondog]

all of this i think is best Do 217, mosquitos are surely best in night fighter, recce role and pathfinder, b 25 in attack mission and versus boat (guns nose variants)

Where would Do 217 survive in daylight strategic or tactical bombing role behind Allied lines in 1944-1945?

I understand this is a mission distinction and Allied air superiority would dictate survivability on one hand, but simply Luftwaffe had no capacity for medium long range escort... so Do 217 not effective in any daylight bombing role after 1943 - at least not in the west whereas both Mossie and B-25 continued those roles to end of war.

In Night bombing role it was somewhat less vulnerable than in daytime but still much more vulnerable than the Mossie?

Even amti shipping role, while interesting with guided missles, still required approaching the target un molested by Allied land based cover or fleet air arm fighters. I don't truly know how well it performed in either high or low level attack against Allied shipping to enable contrast of B-25 after 1943?

B-25s did a great job in both daylight and night against japanese shipping throughout the war.

 

[Vincenzo]

Here talking of aircraft not of Air power, for low level my fault it's for ship attacking

 

[Tony Williams]

The later special versions of 1944 with a bulged bomb bay, using a special HC bomb could carry a single 4000 lbs cookie - question though what usefulness this load had apart from nuisance terror raids executed from high altitude against urban centres - with questionable material gains, apart from propaganda effort.

I think you are confusing capability with tactics here. The Mosquito was able to carry a 4,000 lb bomb to Berlin at an almost uninterceptable speed, return to base, bomb up and carry out a second identical raid during one long winter night. How that capability was used by the RAF is a different matter.

As far as speed goes, its only important as long as it can be maintained for long periods without seriously jeopardizing range of the aircraft - no bombers were travelling at maximum level speeds for any sustained period. And even when at all out level speed, it was doubtful that a bomber could contest in that with a fighter. Increasing cruising speeds sufficiently and thus narrowing the interception envelope for enemy interceptors could mean that the incoming bomber may evade interceptions altogether.

The bomber needed to cruise at high speed and altitude only while in the fighter intercept zone. Altitude mattered as well as speed, because it took the interceptors time to climb up to the bomber, by which time a fast bomber could well be out of range. An interceptor needed a considerable speed advantage over a bomber to make an intercept, as well as a fast climb. And enough fuel to chase for long enough to catch the bomber.

The Luftwaffe formed special anti-Mosquito fighter units, with high-performance single-engined fighters, but eventually disbanded them because they achieved little or nothing.

I am not even sure what the Mosquito has to do within these comparison, being a fast light bomberl, basically, and being more close in role and performance to the Me 410, Pe 2 etc. than actual twin engined (medium) bombers like the Ju 88, B-25 etc.

Who said anything about "medium"? This thread is about twin-engined bombers, which is what the Mosquito was designed to be. It was light because it omitted any defensive armament and carried only two crew, so it could be much smaller than a plane with the same paylod but with defensive gun positions. It was a deliberate design choice to achieve safety through speed rather than through defensive guns.

Disagree; fast bomber versions of the Ju 88 (Ju 88S) similiar in concept and performance to the Mosquito existed.

Depends on how you define "similar". The Mosquito bomber could reach 408 mph (raised to 415 mph in later versions). The Ju 88S-1 (the most common variant) could manage 379 mph using short-term nitrous oxide boost (340 mph without). The fastest variant was the Ju 88S-3, of which very few were built. This could do 382 mph, more than 30 mph slower than the contemporary Mosquito.

 

[Glider]

I am not sure about payload being huge - initially it was a mere 1000 lbs, with modified bombs they worked it up to 2000 lbs. The Fighter Bomber variants, if we want to include them here (since after all, FB VI Mark was the most numerous) could only carry 1000 lbs internally because the guns took the space in the bomb bay, the rest had to be carried externally, degrading performance.

The 2000lb bomb load was the norm more or less right from the start being available from April 1942. Also to be fair to the FB Mk VI how many Fighter bombers carried 1000lb internally with little impact on performance. Also the Ju88S I believe only had a bombload of 2000lb, at least the Mossie had the option of carrying a 4000lb bomb.

That is true, but it is also true that in the night a, they faced much slower nightfighters burdened with AI equipment b, which concentrated on the heavies first and foremost, taking some firepower away from the Mossies.

However in the daylight when first introduced, the Mosquito suffered about twice as heavy loss rate at around 8% than the 'ordinary' RAF medium bombers over France..

For 1942 this was indeed correct but it isn't a good comparison. The other mediums flew mch shorter range missions under heavy escort. The Mossies were flying over Germany on their own over the most heavily defended airspace in the world. Many hundreds of miles being flown over enemy airspace who had hours to plot their approach.
For 1944 daylight losses were 1.84% of successful missions which was acceptable.

Disagree; fast bomber versions of the Ju 88 (Ju 88S) similiar in concept and performance to the Mosquito existed. In its payload capacity the Ju 88/188 was superior at 3000 kg standard to the typical 914 kg carried by the Mosquitos; Ju 88s existed in all the roles the Mosquito fullfilled (bomber - Ausf. A, recce - Ausf. D, night fighter - Ausf. G, heavy fighter - Ausf. C, fast bomber - Ausf. S), but had more versatility as they were a dive bomber, torpedo bomber. Ground attack with cannon was also a possibility on the Ju 88A. Some other exotic versions (carrying tank canon etc.) also existed.

I don't believe the Ju88S matched the performance on the Mossie of a similar period but came close to the Mossie IV of 1942.

 

[drgondog]

Here talking of aircraft not of Air power, for low level my fault it's for ship attacking

The Do 217 was an excellent bomber and perhaps would have been more recognized had it flown for the Allies because it was faster than a B-25 and as near as I can tell for the same bomb load would have flown farther. The B-25 made so much more contribution in every theatre for all the Allies..

The B-25 had much better defensive firepower but we could debate how effective that really was against Fw 190 or Zero or Me 109

I believe the A-26 was a better twin engine bomber than the B-25 and is faster and has more range than the Do 217 but the Do 217 had a higher ceiling and a heavier bomb load. The B-26 was less capable to side and rear from defensive perspective.

Protected by escort fighters the Do 217 would be a better medium bomber because of speed and payload with equivalent range. In the attack mode at low level both the B-25 and B-26 would be superior in my opinion because of the forward combined firepower of the many 50 cal machine guns and 8-10 5" HVAR rockets..

But the Do 217 could not exploit its fine potential in the West.. still a very fine twin engine bomber.