Top Medium Bomber

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by freebird

Yes it certainly was a very versatile design! And the fact that it appeared so early is something to be condsidered, the A-26 was a very nice aircraft but if you have to wait until 1944.....

Gen Kenny of the 5th AF (and later FEAF) didnt like the A26 as a strafer/skip bomber.

The B25 was considered superior in that role.

[plan_D]

I actually think the Ar 234 was the best medium bomber of all those on the list. The argument against will consist of small numbers and it had no effect on the outcome of the war...

...but the fact remains, for a single aircraft vs. single aircraft; the Ar 234C was the most advanced. It carried enough of a bomb-load to cause serious damage and did it faster than any of the others; making interception extremely difficult.

[syscom3]

True enough it was the most advanced. But what did it do exactly, to effect the outcome of a battle or campaign?

[freebird]

Originally Posted by syscom3

True enough it was the most advanced. But what did it do exactly, to effect the outcome of a battle or campaign?

It depends whether you think "Top" means "Best" or "Most Effective" He could be saying the Ar234 was "Best" and could have been very effective if there were more produced & used.

Here's a question I have: Does anyone have stats on which of the Medium bombers was the best in DEFENSE against fighters? By this I mean if the bomber is operating without fighter cover and is intercepted by fighters, which bomber would stand the best chance of not getting shot down?

I know that the Ju88, Do217, A-20, Pe-2, Havoc etc were fast enough & agile enough to have fighter varients made, were the BOMBER VERSIONS of these any more defensible than say a B-25, B-26 or He111 or IL-4?

[Gnomey]

"Only one Luftwaffe unit, KG 76 (Kampfgeschwader or Bomber Wing 76), was equipped with Ar 234 bombers before Germany's surrender. As the production of the Ar 234 B-2 increased in tempo during fall 1944, the unit received its first aircraft and began training at Burg bei Magdeburg. The unit flew its first operations during December 1944 in support of the Ardennes Offensive. Typical missions consisted of pinprick attacks conducted by less than 20 aircraft, each carrying a single 500 kg (1,100 lb.) bomb. The unit participated in the desperate attacks against the Allied bridgehead over the Rhine at Remagen during mid-March 1945, but failed to drop the Ludendorff railway bridge and suffered a number of losses to anti-aircraft fire. The deteriorating war situation, coupled with shortages of fuel and spare parts, prevented KG 76 from flying more than a handful of sorties from late March to the end of the war. The unit conducted its last missions against Soviet forces encircling Berlin during the final days of April. During the first week of May the unit's few surviving aircraft were either dispersed to airfields still in German hands or destroyed to prevent their capture."

Arado Ar 234B-2 Blitz

Easily the most advanced of the list it did see a fair amount of ops but it didn't have the effect on the war the B-25, B-26, A-26, Mossie or JU-88. Still technologically it was the best, operationally it lacks combat ops but still overall it is top 3 at least. (Mine would be A-26, Ar-234 and Mossie (Ju-88 and B-25 round the top 5)).

[syscom3]

Gnomey, why the A26?

[Gnomey]

Fast, good armament, good weapons load, good service (into Korea), tricycle landing gear and I like it...

[plan_D]

Thanks syscom, for saying exactly what I stated would be the response. The Ar 234 saw enough combat to be a proven design, it had no effect on the war, but having an effect on the war doesn't make a design - it's the design itself.
There's very few aircraft that had an effect on the war, anyway, to name the few: P-51, B-29 and C-47. No other aircraft on their own had an effect on the war.

[Soren]

Ar-234 for the same reasons as Plan_D stated.

The Ju-88, B-25 & Mosquito are the top of the piston engined medium bombers.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by plan_D

I actually think the Ar 234 was the best medium bomber of all those on the list. The argument against will consist of small numbers and it had no effect on the outcome of the war...

...but the fact remains, for a single aircraft vs. single aircraft; the Ar 234C was the most advanced. It carried enough of a bomb-load to cause serious damage and did it faster than any of the others; making interception extremely difficult.

Like the Me 262, the Ar 238 had the best performance - is that enough to be the 'Best or Top'? If selection criteria included tons of bombs dropped, or targets destroyed, or (if one could find it) amount of production or labor hours expended to repair damage, ... in other words material effect to enemy operations neither will fit when such criteria would be applied.

I agree it was a.) the Best in context of performance, b.) the Best in context of Potential, and c.) the bottom, or near last, of the list in context of contribution.

Regards,

Bill

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Gen Kenny of the 5th AF (and later FEAF) didnt like the A26 as a strafer/skip bomber.

The B25 was considered superior in that role.

Syscom - there is no reason, operationally or performance wise, that the B-25 was superior to the A26A or B in any role... and certainly the B-25 was not considered as bomber in post WWII USAF while the A-26 contributed all the way through Korea, Bay of Pigs, Congo, Viet Nam..

What I am saying, is that as much as we all respect Kenney, I wonder about that statement and what his detailed reasons were? It's possible that something about PTO that made the B-25 more desirable for him but it shouldn't be 'skip bombing'..

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Syscom - there is no reason, operationally or performance wise, that the B-25 was superior to the A26A or B in any role... and certainly the B-25 was not considered as bomber in post WWII USAF while the A-26 contributed all the way through Korea, Bay of Pigs, Congo, Viet Nam..

What I am saying, is that as much as we all respect Kenney, I wonder about that statement and what his detailed reasons were? It's possible that something about PTO that made the B-25 more desirable for him but it shouldn't be 'skip bombing'..

The B25 (and A20 for that matter) had superior visibility for the pilots. The
A-26's nacelles interfered with the pilots vision. The B25 pilots said they wanted the B25's for the skip bombing roll for that reason.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The B25 (and A20 for that matter) had superior visibility for the pilots. The
A-26's nacelles interfered with the pilots vision. The B25 pilots said they wanted the B25's for the skip bombing roll for that reason.

That has a ring of truth to it. in the ETO it was hands down A-26 because of speed and acceleration, although visibility was tough for any twin with R-2800s..

[Civettone]

What's negative about the A-26 was its high landing speed which meant it couldn't operate from the same forward bases as the B-25, and the position of its engines which seriously limited the side view.

My best bombers (for its own timeframe) would be:
1 - Mosquito
2 - A-20
3 - B-25
4 - Do 17
5 - Ki-67
and honorable mention for the CANT Z.1007.

Kris

[plan_D]

Contribution has nothing to do with a design; the F-22 is the best fighter in todays skies but it hasn't made a single contribution to anything. The Ar 234 was a more advanced design, and a league above the rest of the medium bombers - making it the best.