Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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 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.
I recall the Do could carry a very heavy bomb-load if necessary. It was also faster than the B-25.
Well for anti-shipping i'd say a Do-217 with Hs-293 or Fritz-X would be hard to beat.
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%.
Second place would be the Ju 88 family. Equally versatile, but lacking the performance of the Mosquito.
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.
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)
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Disagree; fast bomber versions of the Ju 88 (Ju 88S) similiar in concept and performance to the Mosquito existed.
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.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.
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..
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.
Here talking of aircraft not of Air power, for low level my fault it's for ship attacking