USAAF twins....?

Would it be fair to compare the A-20, A-26, B-26 and B-25 to each other, or is the only thing incoming between them that they're "twins"? Would the A-20 and A-26 be more in style of "lightweights" and the B-26 and B-25 "mediumweights"?

I think that would be fair, to put the A-20 / A-26 into a lightweight based off of their airframe weight. I would guess the Mitchell and Marauder are heavier.

Though Im not sure, but I bet bombload wise, the A-26 may be equal to the B-26 and B-25.

IMHO all those planes were great planes, US produced top class twins, even Maryland/Baltimore were good even if Maryland was a second best for USAAC. Ventura wasn't as good but it was based on airliner and IIRC built for British, some might be used as training a/c by USAAF and its development served in USN.
British were very pleased with Boston/Havoc (A-20) and Soviets with A-20 and B-25. So also foreign used gave US twins high marks.

Juha

The Boston did stirling service with the RAF, and the Ventura did quite well despite it's civilian origins. According to Martin Bowman, the Mitchell suffered some teething troubles with internal systems, but these were minor and the type went on to give good service.

Personally, I always consider the B-25, B-26 (Marauder) and A-26 (Invader) to be in a league above the A-20 and Ventura due to their size and bombload, although this is purely subjective. It is a shame the B-26 suffered from a 'widow-making' reputation, my understanding is that it was not an inherently poor machine, but did require more skill to fly than it's contemporarys.

BombTaxi said:

The Boston did stirling service with the RAF, and the Ventura did quite well despite it's civilian origins. According to Martin Bowman, the Mitchell suffered some teething troubles with internal systems, but these were minor and the type went on to give good service.

Personally, I always consider the B-25, B-26 (Marauder) and A-26 (Invader) to be in a league above the A-20 and Ventura due to their size and bombload, although this is purely subjective. It is a shame the B-26 suffered from a 'widow-making' reputation, my understanding is that it was not an inherently poor machine, but did require more skill to fly than it's contemporarys.

Click to expand...

The RAAF were also very effective with the Boston. The B-26 started with quite a poor reckon but as far as I'm aware had the lowest loss record of any US bomber in Europe by the end of the war.

I know its not really a bomber though I suppose you could stretch a point and call it a maritime reconaisance bomber but I have always thought the Lockheed Hudson was one of the most handsome aircraft of WWII.

I personally liked most A-20 and B-26. Later A-20s could carry 1800kg bomb load which wasn't bad, it was also very manoeuvrable. As Watanbe wrote, B-26 had a lowest loss rate of USAAF bombers in ETO, B-26Bs max bomb load was IIRC 2360kg and they did well as tactical bombers. B-25 was a bit slower and carried a bit smaller bomb load than B-26 but was probably easier to fly.

Juha

Hi,

The B26 "One a day in Tampa Bay" was a beautiful looking aircraft, and yes, when the pilots got used to handling the B26 it did have one of the lowest loss rates of US Bombers in the ETO. It also had one of the best bombing accuracies.

The Hudsons were also used by the RAAF in the PTO. RAAF 1-squadron went from Ansons to Hudsons and then were deployed in New Guinea. They served well and these planes spotted large fleet movements prior to Pearl Harbour.

Also they were dispatched to check on the status of the Repulse and Prince of Wales battleships, and when they got to the area all they saw was debri and oil slicks.

The Hudson was popular with the crews because it was a lot more confortable than the Ansons.

seeyuzz
river

PS: Didn't the A26 get designated to B26 soon after the war? I assume the B26 Marauder was pulled from service fairly soon after WW2? And IIRC the A26 was sued in Korea... and Vietnam?