|
| |||||||
| Aviation Discussion on the aircraft of WWII. |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
07-04-2008, 12:43 PM
| #1 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: May 2008 Location: bomber command hq.
Posts: 162
| twin engined bombers. now,i know lots of twins were used for other duties,so what do you think was the best all round twin engined bomber of ww2.please do include other duties as well,as i think this would make good reading.yours,starling.
__________________ "Every German city,is not worth the bones of one British Grenadier". |
|         |
|
07-04-2008, 02:27 PM
| #2 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ocala Florida USA
Posts: 263
| I would have to go with the mosquitto.What did it NOT do well ? Ed |
|
| |
|
07-04-2008, 02:35 PM
| #3 |
| Banned Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 339
| Ju-88 and Pe-2 imo. |
|
| |
|
07-04-2008, 02:46 PM
| #4 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Canvey Island, Essex
Posts: 4,029
| Mossie, brilliantly concept totally went against the grain (no punn intended) at a time when stressed skin alloys was the in thing. |
|
| |
|
07-04-2008, 06:54 PM
| #5 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,994
| I think the mosquito was the best twin engined bombe. Adequate bomb load, high performace, and tru multi-role. add to that low production costs, and you have a war winner
__________________ Do not judge on abilities, but on choices |
|
| |
|
07-05-2008, 12:25 PM
| #6 |
| Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: bomber command hq.
Posts: 162
| i like the wellington.but how would the pe-2 or the tu-2,or tu-4.i am not up on russian aircraft,compare to the mossie.yours,starling.
__________________ "Every German city,is not worth the bones of one British Grenadier". |
|
| |
|
07-05-2008, 01:40 PM
| #7 |
| Der Crewchief   Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 33,152
| 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.
__________________  fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I] |
|
| |
|
07-05-2008, 09:09 PM
| #8 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 648
| Agreed. I actually think the Mosquito is a little better just because of the brilliance of the design and because of its speed. I don't know, Ju88 was pretty good as well. |
|
| |
|
07-06-2008, 04:34 AM
| #9 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 273
| 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%. That made it astonishingly efficient, because it was necessary to replace the planes and crews at only one-tenth of the rate (and with only two crew, two engines and no guns, each loss was far less costly). In other versions the Mossie was also highly versatile, being as good a night-fighter as any in the war, and was used in anti-submarine work too (especially the Tsetse, with that 57mm Molins gun). Second place would be the Ju 88 family. Equally versatile, but lacking the performance of the Mosquito. I'm not sure where the rest would come. There were some good US and Soviet mediums, but I don't have enough information about their service records to make meaningful comparisons. 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.
__________________ Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website |
|
| |
|
07-06-2008, 09:57 AM
| #10 |
| IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO  Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 16,050
| I give the Mossie high marks in it's operational record and it's versatility. Although it light construction was a plus, it was also it's undoing in the post-war years. The Ju 88 also a versatile aircraft, but I'll throw the A-26 into the mix. Fast, modern, remote control turrets, and a great bomb load, it served until the 1960s.
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  |
|
| |
|
07-06-2008, 10:27 AM
| #11 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Montrose, Colorado
Posts: 3,271
| The A26 came in late but it was a heck of a twin engined bomber. As a bomber, probably superior to the Mosquito. |
|
| |
|
07-06-2008, 10:55 AM
| #12 | |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: oregon
Posts: 3,942
| Quote:
The A-26 was simply a better weapons system than the B-25, and as a medium bomber I think it was better than the B-26, the B-25 and the Ju 88. But the B-25 through mid 1944 was the 'do everything' medium for US, serving in all services and all theatres. The only thing it didn't do vs the Ju 88 was recon and 'bomber interceptor' simply because there was no need to force fit the B-25 when other systems were in place that were far better than both. Obviously the Ar 234 is best 'future weapon system' and best at the end of the war on sheer performance vs contribution - but it wasn't around long enough to cause any problems. | |
|
| |
|
07-06-2008, 12:21 PM
| #13 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 110
| Ju-88 and Mossie. Both are "Jack of all trades". Maybe slight edge to the Mossie, but not by much. |
|
| |
|
07-08-2008, 10:01 AM
| #14 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Adelaide
Posts: 510
| Beaufighter? Could that be classed as a bomber at all or only a fighter-bomber?
__________________  |
|
| |
|
07-08-2008, 10:28 AM
| #15 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Canvey Island, Essex
Posts: 4,029
| I think the Mossies performance gave it the edge over the JU88 |
|
| |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
