ADS NOT DISPLAYED TO REGISTERED USERS.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 223
Like Tree23Likes

The best 2-engined bomber in 1944-45?

Aviation Discuss The best 2-engined bomber in 1944-45? in the World War II - Aviation forums; Out of many workhorses, what 2-engined bomber might be reckoned as the best for time frame between Jan 1944 to ...

  1. #1
    Creator of Interesting Threads tomo pauk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,505
    Country
    Croatia

    The best 2-engined bomber in 1944-45?

    Out of many workhorses, what 2-engined bomber might be reckoned as the best for time frame between Jan 1944 to VE day? I'm looking at the best complete package (payload over distance, performance with bomb load, reasonable ability to survive vs. fighters & AAA, ability to attack different targets, etc), being in combat service (no prototypes, or pre-series types).
    Note that I did not state light/medium/heavy/attack bomber type, since different countries have had different nomenclatures. Instead of that: a twin-engined bomber to rule them all


  2. #2
    Senior Member davebender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    5,241
    Country
    United States

    The cream of the crop.

    best complete package (payload over distance, performance with bomb load, reasonable ability to survive vs. fighters & AAA, ability to attack different targets, etc),
    Me-410 has the best bombing accuracy (it could dive bomb). Good armor protection vs AA fire, range and survivability vs enemy fighter aircraft.

    Mosquito carried a heavier bomb load but less armor protection. Like the Me-410 it had excellent range and survivability vs enemy aircraft.

    A-26 was more of a traditional medium bomber but it was a good one. The USAAC finally realized that speed was more important then multiple defensive gun turrets.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Hobart Tasmania
    Posts
    2,327
    Country
    Australia
    Mosquito without a doubt.

  4. #4
    Senior Member pbfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    niagara falls
    Posts
    7,635
    Country
    Canada
    A26 Invader without a doubt still flying combat missions in the 70`s which certainly surpasses Mosquito

  5. #5
    jim
    jim is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    218
    Me 410 was very good light bomber , so was P1Y Ginga
    A26 invader was good and proved valuable in Korea and Vietnam but always had the benefit of total air superiority provided by the huge numbers of american fighters
    My best proposal would be Ki-67 Peggy . Only on two 1900 ps engines, provided good passive protection, heavy and well distributed defensive armament, exceptional manouverability, easy handling,good range , good speed and 6/8 man crew( an exxageration in my opinion). a good basis for upgraded engines and equipment. And one of the most beautiful aircraft of the era . On the other hand the internal bomb load of 1000kgr indicates a small internal bomb bay and lack of 2 stage superchargers limited altitude performance. I would rated it slightly higher than -the excellent- A 26

  6. #6
    Senior Member Thorlifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Tx
    Posts
    6,852
    Country
    United States
    Wouldn't complete air superiority make just about any plane better than it really is?

    I'll side with the A-26 for reasons already stated.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    maidenhead uk
    Posts
    1,321
    Country
    United Kingdom
    Blog Entries
    1
    Mosquito

  8. #8
    Senior Member davebender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    5,241
    Country
    United States

    limited altitude performance

    Why does this matter? Pathfinder aircraft are the only light/medium bombers that have any business above 20,000 feet.

  9. #9
    Banned Siegfried's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    794
    Country
    Australia
    The Arado 234B, clearly the fastest bomber in service. It had plenty of growth left in it, the Arado 234C with quad engines could push the aircraft well into the 500mph range and a swept or rather crescent wing version was under construction.

    The days of the slow level bomber was over; they were probably only months away from being bisected by the first surface to air missiles or slashed by radar assisted computing gun sights firing from fighters able to aim and attack accuratly from any direction and fire from out of the range of defensive guns. Even radar direted tail guns (such as village in) would be of little use against a fighter capable of blind fire at much greater distances and perhaps using unguided proximity fused missiles such as the Rheinmetall-Borsig R100 (about 25 were fired.)

    The Arado 234 could aim its bombs by a number of electronic means (Zyklops a beam riding system and also EG-ON a transponder based system) which was the only way to be accurate way to aim; well ahead of H2S or optical (in all but the clearest days). The Arado 234B could also aim its bombs via the Lotfe 7 level bombing sight linked to the autopilot and the Stuvi 5B slide/dive bombing sight with BZA computer. The Ar 234C added a second crew member as well as much more speed and thrust.
    Last edited by Siegfried; 04-01-2012 at 04:13 AM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member pbfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    niagara falls
    Posts
    7,635
    Country
    Canada
    Only months away was a lifetime in the crumbling Reich and all their fantasy weapons would end up being for naught and your talking about the 4 engine version which is not part of the discussion. The reich was a none factor

  11. #11
    jim
    jim is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    218
    Mr Siegfried
    Obviusly jets provided unmatched performance but i feel ,even german jets, belong to the post war era. Additionaly Arado 234 without an internal bomb bay and given its range/bombload combinations seems more like an attack aircraft than a medium bomber
    Speaking of Arado 234 .... I read somewhere that the C version was faster even than Me 262A , Do you agree? Eric Brown loved that bird

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Hobart Tasmania
    Posts
    2,327
    Country
    Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by davebender View Post
    Why does this matter? Pathfinder aircraft are the only light/medium bombers that have any business above 20,000 feet.
    Below 20,000ft surely brings the bombers well within flak range?

    And if bombing from 20-30,000ft was good for the 4 engines heavies, what is wrong with the twins bombing from up there also?

    Surely you either want to be up there or just above ground level?

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Hobart Tasmania
    Posts
    2,327
    Country
    Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by pbfoot View Post
    A26 Invader without a doubt still flying combat missions in the 70`s which certainly surpasses Mosquito
    It wasn't flying combat missions continuously in that period. And it wasn't operating as a bomber so much as ground attack/coin aircraft.

    It only flew in Vietnam because the USAF discovered that they had failed to field an appropriate aircraft for the role. So the A-26 filled in.

  14. #14
    Senior Member davebender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    5,241
    Country
    United States

    Below 20,000ft surely brings the bombers well within flak range?

    A price that must be paid if you want to hit the target with iron bombs. That's why the Me-410 and Ju-88 could dive bomb.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Hobart Tasmania
    Posts
    2,327
    Country
    Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by davebender View Post
    A price that must be paid if you want to hit the target with iron bombs. That's why the Me-410 and Ju-88 could dive bomb.
    If you want to hit the target then you could bomb from low level.

    Unless you were using bombs that needed to penetrate - in which case you need height (and a bomb specifically designed for the task).

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Best Anti-Tank Aircraft of World War 2....
    By lesofprimus in forum Polls
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 02-03-2012, 08:31 PM
  2. The Best Bomber of WWII: #4
    By syscom3 in forum Aviation
    Replies: 1135
    Last Post: 10-04-2011, 06:44 PM
  3. Best 1943 Carrier Bomber (non-TB)
    By freebird in forum Polls
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 12-06-2009, 05:05 PM
  4. Replies: 695
    Last Post: 07-03-2009, 02:28 PM
  5. The Best Bf - 109 Variant ?
    By lesofprimus in forum Old Threads
    Replies: 522
    Last Post: 07-12-2005, 11:35 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86