twin engined bombers.

davebender said:

Let's compare historical data.

Vickers Wellington.
11,460 aircraft produced.
47,409 sorties flown by RAF Bomber Command. 4.1 sorties per bomber.

Avro Lancaster.
7,366 aircraft produced.
156,192 sorties flown by RAF Bomber Command. 21.2 sorties per bomber.

It appears to me the Lancaster was the level bomber of choice. The Wellington was used only because the Lancaster wasn't available during 1939.

Click to expand...

Well no one will disagree with you on that score but as the Wellington was replaced by the Halifax and Lancaster you wouldn't expect anything else.

Its a bit like saying that the P40 was only used because the P51/P47 wasn't available during 1941/2

DonL said:

I don't realy disagree with you Glider, but I think the He 111 could match with the Wellington at 1936 till 1940
and it was also introduced in service in serious numbers!

Click to expand...

I woud go with that

davebender said:

Let's compare historical data.

Vickers Wellington.
11,460 aircraft produced.
47,409 sorties flown by RAF Bomber Command. 4.1 sorties per bomber.

Avro Lancaster.
7,366 aircraft produced.
156,192 sorties flown by RAF Bomber Command. 21.2 sorties per bomber.

It appears to me the Lancaster was the level bomber of choice. The Wellington was used only because the Lancaster wasn't available during 1939.

Click to expand...

this comparison is bugged Wellington get many more missions out of BC, but it's obvious the Lancaster was the choice of BC,
the Wellington was major BC bomber until 1942

Originally Posted by bowfin
I'm not sure the Mosquito could have taken the beatings on low level raids as done in the Pacific. Speed is negated when you have to fly right into the AA fire.

My vote would be for the A-26 Invader.

Click to expand...

Where on earth did you get that idea.

Click to expand...

From about a half dozen guys who used to fly through the stuff as a full time job. (One of the fringe benefits of organizing a WWII fly in!)

Again, one can't outrun flak...especially when one are heading into it. Since these veterans knew they couldn't get a plane that flew faster than a speeding bullet (or speeding shell, or speeding fragment) they appreciated sturdy planes.

Mosquitoes made their name on surprise hit and run attacks. That's a nice way to take out a single building, but those types of attacks are not going to put an airfield out of commission, soften up a mile of the front line, or similar heavy duty chores. That takes a formation, and that usually means it's only a surprise attack for the first flight of planes in the best of circumstances.

Can I ask if these were these B25/B26/A26 pilots or Mosquito pilots?
Its interesting as I know that the USAAF decided that the Mosquito was not suitable as a light bomber in Europe or suitable for night flying which is a little ironic considering its success in the RAF as a light bomber and strike aircraft in Europe and as a night fighter/bomber. Its something that I have often wondered about and your observation might touch on one of the reasons. I do admit that I have tended to put it down to the Not Invented Here syndrome.

The USAAF only really used them for recce missions and as weather data collection, I believe that some night fighters were used for a while but not the FB VI or bomber versions.

Any information or thoughts that you have would be of interest

PS its rare for any medium bomber unit to soften up a mile of the front line or take out an airfield.

bowfin said:

I'm not sure the Mosquito could have taken the beatings on low level raids as done in the Pacific. Speed is negated when you have to fly right into the AA fire.

My vote would be for the A-26 Invader.

Click to expand...

Basic job for CC Mossies see: COASTAL COMMAND WRECK NAZI SHIPPING - British Pathé

Besides, IIRC 5th AF prefer A-20 over A-26.

But I agree that radials suited better for that kind of work than liquid cooled Vs. But at least in ETO enemy fighters were also a problem, one of the reasons why many CC strike sqns converted from Beau to Mossie. But it is true that RAF used mostly FBs like Mossie VI in their shipping strikes during later part of the war.

Juha

Mostly B-25 pilots, with one or two B-26 pilots. One of the B-25 pilots finished his missions and came back to the states and trained on A-26s for the invasion of Japan, but never flew the plane in combat.

The B-25 pilots were all 5th Air Force guys, which meant they bombed right down on the deck. So low, that one pilot lost his aircraft when a fuel dump touched off and enveloped his plane in flames. (This was the crew that Nathan Gordon won the Congressional Medal of Honor for rescuing with a PBY). They had the strongest opinions on survivability:

--They hated the B-25H which did away with the copilot, and liked that the -J model brought it back

--They put more faith in jinking and skidding to throw off AA fire than speed (altitude wasn't an option). One pilot told me he chewed out a new guy for trying to flying fast instead of flying shifty, and the new guy told him to just fly his own plane. The guy who flew straight and fast was shot down the next mission. (I am sure the opposite happened somewhere else)

--They said the B-25D was able to fly one one engine and the B-25J could not, due to the increase in weight. They missed that trait. One of the pilots lost his -J model to an engine failure on takeoff and his top turret gunner drowned.

--The B-25 guys thought the B-26 was a death trap due to its high landing speed and high wing loading. The B-26 guys took great offense to this, saying that they had a lower loss rate in operations. This was in turn rebutted with the supposition that by the time B-26 pilots were in combat, all the lesser skilled and/or unlucky B-26 pilots were dead (I kept my mouth shut here.)

--They expected plane damage as a fact of life on the deck. It was easier for fighters to catch them, they were within range of every gun pointed at them, they could get damage from secondary explosions and bomb blasts. (The cardinal rule was NEVER fly directly behind another B-25 and get caught in the wake of whatever was going to blow up.)

--They thought the tail gunner position was a death trap, although I don't know why. One said because the gunner was stuffed back there and couldn't move.(???) Well....it's not like the rest of the crew had a lot of room to dodge bullets, and how does one dodge AWAY from a bullet and not INTO one. I chalked this up to claustraphobia more than anything else, sort of like the ball turret stories on the B-17, but that's just my conjecture.

I never talked to a top turret gunner who flew in both the -D and -J models to see if they preferred the placement of the turret in either model. (The B-25J had the turret moved towards the front to improve field of fire was what I was told).

In the end, I think guys in sturdy planes liked sturdy planes, guys in fast planes liked fast planes, etc. Mostly because the vets who tell their stories SURVIVED in those planes. Kind of like dolphins pushing injured swimmers to shore. We never hear from the injured swimmers pushed out to sea...

Evil dolphins! One more thing to have nightmares about.

7,700 Mosquitos, 11,500 Pe-2's, and 9,900 B-25's, 15,000 Ju-88's.

I'll go with the Pe-2 or B-25 as the best twin-engine piston bomber and with the Ju-88 as the most versatile even though versatility was not included in the question of best medium bomber. I love the Mosquito, and it was as versatile as the Ju-88, but there were only about half as many Mosquitos as Ju-88's, so the Ju-88 gets the nod in my book as doing more for the home country's war efforts.

I have little direct knowledge of Pe-2 oeprations, but it was rugged and operated in conditions that would ground most Allied aircraft. The B-25 could hit as a medium bomber and, in the SAME flight, strafe targets of opportunity while going home. I believe Mossie bombers were unarmed.

As I understand it, the B-25 and Mosquito both had about a 4,000 pound bomb load and the Pe-2 was at about 3,500 pounds. The Ju-88 was down about 2,500 but had many other options as armament and could also dive-bomb.

A tough question and one with probably 2 or 3 correct answers depending on what is important to you, the person doing the pick. It would be hard to go wrong picking any iof the four in my book.

Bowfin
Many thanks for that, I envy you.

Its worth noting that the RAF considered the Mosquito to be a light bomber and the B25/26 medium bombers, however the payload was basically the same. Just because the Mosquito was very fast doesn't mean that it couldn't jink or weave. It was clearly a lot smaller than the B25/B26, a lot faster and a lot more agile so its going to take fewer hits.

How would that relate to survivability frankly who knows. No 2 Group RAF used them both in daylight over europe but a simple comparison of loss rates wouldn't be fair as they did different missions. The Mosquitos being used for the longer deep penetration raids often at low low level, something the B25/B26 didn't dare do.
What I do know is that given a choice between a smaller faster more agile Mosquto that didn't have much to fear from fighters and could easily fly on one engine vs a later B25 that is almost certain to take more hits and couldn't fly on one engine, I know what my choice would be.

If I had to chose a medium bomber I would go for the Do217 every time. Faster than the B25, almost the same empty weight and a much larger payload.

bowfin said:

I'm not sure the Mosquito could have taken the beatings on low level raids as done in the Pacific. Speed is negated when you have to fly right into the AA fire.

Click to expand...

The Mossie was strong, but would agree the Mid- Pacific was not her theatre for a different reason: Far east users of the Mossie complained of wing failure, entire upper wing panels popping from their frames on occasion. Turned out factory workers were getting sloppy and the quality of the glue wasn't up to scratch for tropical conditions. Stricter measures were placed on production as a result.

Incidentally the same problem was found with the four De Havilland DH 89B Dominie serving the RNZAF in Fiji, 1944. The wood/ canvas structure simply couldn't handle the humidity and within a year two were dilapidated wrecks, and the second pair scrapped and stripped of remaining usable spares to maintain the remainder of the fleet back in NZ.

GregP said:

7,700 Mosquitos, 11,500 Pe-2's, and 9,900 B-25's, 15,000 Ju-88's.

Click to expand...

Maybe they didn't need to make as many Mosquitos as they didn't get shot out of the air as regularly....

Just because the Mosquito was very fast doesn't mean that it couldn't jink or weave. It was clearly a lot smaller than the B25/B26, a lot faster and a lot more agile so its going to take fewer hits.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on the Mosquito's maneuverability being superior to a B-25 / B-26 and probaly even an A-20, (the last I don't know as much about). You are also correct that being missed in a wooden plane is far superior to being hit in a surdy or heavily armored plane.

As an aside, there was a B-25 named "Patches" that flew approximately 300 missions for the 321st Bomb Group. Every time it was hit by enemy fire and patched, the Crew Chief painted the repair with zinc chromate primer. This airplane ended up with over 400 repairs. I am surprised they would keep this aircraft flying without it reaching "war weary" status.

GregP said:

I have little direct knowledge of Pe-2 oeprations, but it was rugged and operated in conditions that would ground most Allied aircraft... bomb load and the Pe-2 was at about 3,500 pounds. The Ju-88 was down about 2,500 but had many other options as armament and could also dive-bomb...

Click to expand...

Hello Greg
The max bomb load of Pe-2F and FT was 1500kg but normal was only 1000kg/2204lb, it could also dive bomb. Max normal for Ju 88A was 2 t, max overload 3 t.

Juha

GregP said:

7,700 Mosquitos, 11,500 Pe-2's, and 9,900 B-25's, 15,000 Ju-88's.

I'll go with the Pe-2 or B-25 as the best twin-engine piston bomber and with the Ju-88 as the most versatile even though versatility was not included in the question of best medium bomber. I love the Mosquito, and it was as versatile as the Ju-88, but there were only about half as many Mosquitos as Ju-88's, so the Ju-88 gets the nod in my book as doing more for the home country's war efforts.

I have little direct knowledge of Pe-2 oeprations, but it was rugged and operated in conditions that would ground most Allied aircraft. The B-25 could hit as a medium bomber and, in the SAME flight, strafe targets of opportunity while going home. I believe Mossie bombers were unarmed.

As I understand it, the B-25 and Mosquito both had about a 4,000 pound bomb load and the Pe-2 was at about 3,500 pounds. The Ju-88 was down about 2,500 but had many other options as armament and could also dive-bomb.

A tough question and one with probably 2 or 3 correct answers depending on what is important to you, the person doing the pick. It would be hard to go wrong picking any iof the four in my book.

Click to expand...

Hi Greg. I can recommend you the book Petlyakov PE-2 'Peshka'by Peter C. Smith (ISBN 1 86126 588 3). A good read, not only of the PE2 but also about the circonstances the Russian aircraft industry had to operate. It's almost a miracle how they managed to get any decent planes at all. The first PE2 could handle a bombload of 1600 kg but only in an overload situation. The usual load was 600 to 1000 kg. But considering that the PE2 was very often used as divebomber (30 to 60 degree dives), this was usualy enough. The 4000 lb for the Mosquito was not for all bomberversions and required an adopted bomb. According to wiki the JU88a4 ((first flight at the end of 1940 but used almost throughout the whole of the war) could carry almost 6100lb of ordenance gfrom which 3100 lb internaly. knowing all that, I still won't know which to pick. Probably not the pe2 because the building quality wasn't 100%. Vladimir Petlyakov died in one, you know.

Planes were often power limited. There is very little "magic", some planes perform a bit better than predicted (like the Mosquito), others have a trick or two up their sleeve, like the Mustang. But in general "TANSTAAFL" applies.
But usually you can make a fair guess looking at the power available and the general aircraft size. A PE-2 had about 5% more wing area than Me 110 and usually less power. In some ways it might outperform a Me 110 but not by large amounts or without sacrificing some other aspect of performance.
The B-25 did loose some performance due to it's size and gun positions but it did have a good sized bomb-bay and could accommodate some rather varied payloads. Refer to some of the early versions to see what was given up in speed for the guns. The very early ones carried just under 700 US gallons in the wings and were supposed to carry 3000lbs of bombs 1350 miles.
The Ju 88 had a bit of a split personality. While most of the later versions could lift a very respectable bomb load the majority of it was outside the aircraft and any attempt to really use the max capacity affected both speed and range more than bombers carrying their load inside.

Hats off to all the listed planes, especially the Mosquito and the Ju-88 but I'm going to throw the P-38 into the mix. It was used not only as a fighter bomber but as a "strategic" level bomber as well and with some success. Of all the aircraft mentioned I think the Lightening had the best chance of survival after dropping it bombs.

P-38 was a mighty short ranged "bomber".

A bomber is basically a bomb truck. you can have small trucks with small engines (Battle, Blenheim, Ju-87 Dauntless, etc) or small trucks with big engines ( Mosquito, Me 210, P-38 ) or Big trucks with small engines ( early Wellington, Whitley) or medium trucks with medium to big engines ( later Wellingtons, B-25 , B-26).
You can trade off load and range for speed with some of these combinations. Want to try bombing Genoa Italy from England with a P-38?
Yes, some worked better than others but for a good comparison as bombers try selecting a few representative bomb loads and see how far the vaious planes could carry them, Say a 2000lb load, a 3,000lb load and a 4,000lb load or pick another.
The Mosquito will almost always come out out the top of the heap but then it also had a rather restricted bomb bay. The argument is continuing about it being able to carry much of a variety of bombs for most of it's career. The P-38 has some variety of bomb sizes but it it is restricted in number. 2 bombs (pick your size) and no drop tanks or one bomb and a drop tank if you want more range.

Some estimate of combat range of the P-38 with 300 gal drop tank 2000 lb bomb (provided USAAF had those?)? Guess some MG/cannon ammo is going to be left at the airport, so the plane can take off...

Shortround6 said:

The Mosquito will almost always come out out the top of the heap but then it also had a rather restricted bomb bay. The argument is continuing about it being able to carry much of a variety of bombs for most of it's career.

Click to expand...

That is true.

The Mosquito could carry 4 x 250lb, 4 x 500lb bombs in the standard bomb bay. That is known.

The strengthened wing of the FB.VI made it onto the bombers and allowed the bombers top carry 6 x 250lb or 6 x 500lb bombs, with one under each wing.

Then, from early 1944, the bulged bomb bay appeared allowing the Mosquito to carry the 4000lb HC and 4000lb MC bombs. This also allowed 6 x 250lb or 6 x 500lb bombs to be carried in the famed Avro carrier.

What is not clear is if the Mosquito could carry 1000lb and 2000lb bombs.

I would suggest that the Mosquito could carry a single 1000lb GP/MC or 1900 GP/MC in place of a 4000lb HC/MC bomb. The 1900lb bomb, at least, would probably need the bulged bomb bay. Each of these bombs had a single mounting lug.

The 2000lb AP should fit - well, 2 of them could fit side by side in the standard bomb bay. But they don't use the standard suspension lugs, but are supported by two straps - so no idea if that could be adapted to a Mosquito.

American bombs were very occasionally used by the British. These are problematic for use in the Mosquito since they tended to have box tails which were larger than the diameter of the body. (Many British and American bombs were fitted with both a single lug for British use and two lugs for American use.)

As for variety, there are a number of British air dropped ordinance that was similar in size and weight to the 500lb GP/MC bombs.

Shortround6 said:

The P-38 has some variety of bomb sizes but it it is restricted in number. 2 bombs (pick your size) and no drop tanks or one bomb and a drop tank if you want more range.

Click to expand...

Couldn't they use a "tree" to mount multiple smaller bombs?

There is one type of bomb which the Mosquito could be adapted to use and the Lightning not - Highball.

Lightnings were also restricted to bombs of 2000lb and less, I believe.