The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[buffnut453]

Just to shake things up, I'm going for the Mosquito because it presaged every ground attack/bomber aircraft of the post-war period (B-52 excepted) - make it fast, make it carry a decent bomb-load, and don't weigh it down with additional weight and crew required to operate defensive turret-based weapons. On top of that, it's loss rate was very low compared to "traditional' bomber types (and when you lost one aircraft, you only lost 2 personnel not 8 or 10).

Now to duck back down behind the parapet in preparation for the inevitable swarm of projectiles that will be hurled in my direction...!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No projectiles coming from me. I myself do not think the Mossie is the best bomber, but I think that there is a valid arguement for it.

 

[phatzo]

No need to duck, The Mossie was an awsome aircraft capable of defending itself in a dogfight (not the glass nose) if need be, a safe aircraft for its crew. Some may dispute the 4 cannon Mossies were attack aircraft and the glass nose was the only true bomber.

 

[zoomar]

It depends if you mean "greatest" or "best". "Greatest" takes into account fame, longevity, numbers deployed, success, and intangibles, which are not the same as "best', which is a measure only of simple technical performance Also, how do you fairly compare heavy bombers with small attackers when talking about the best? You can't, which is why I'm dividing my vote into categories:

Heavy Bomber. The "best" is clearly the B-29, based on speed, altitude performance, payload, and modernity. The "greatest" is a tossup between the Lancaster and the B-17.

Medium bomber. "Best" and "greatest" are the same : B-25.

Light bomber. Again, "best "and "greatest" are the same, but it's close. The Mosquito narrowly wins over the Ju88. Also rans for best include the A-20, A-26, the Pe-2 series, and the Me-410 once the kinks were ironed out. I ignore late war flashes in the pan like the jet Ar234.

Land based ground attacker. Can it be anything other than the Il-2 Sturmovik? Nope, Commies have both the best and greatest in this category.

 

[tomo pauk]

How come B-25 is medium bomber, while Mossie Ju-88 are light bombers??

 

[Shortround6]

How come B-25 is medium bomber, while Mossie Ju-88 are light bombers??

JU-88 is a medium bomber.

The Mosquito weighs loaded less than the the B-25 or JU-88 did empty equipped.

 

[Glider]

How come B-25 is medium bomber, while Mossie Ju-88 are light bombers??

RAF records show the Mossie as a light bomber and the B25/B26 as mediums.

 

[tomo pauk]

Me thinks that we should agree about the main issue of a bomber belonging in one or other class: is it the empty/equipped weight, bomb load over distance, or official nomenclature.

Eg. Germans called 47-ton Panther tank medium, while Americans called 42-ton M-26 heavy, then Italians called 26-ton P-26/40 heavy tank - point being nomenclature is not consistent for all beligernents of the same war.

 

[zoomar]

JU-88 is a medium bomber.

The Mosquito weighs loaded less than the the B-25 or JU-88 did empty equipped.

I classed the Ju88 as a light bomber because it was fairly small, had a fairly small bombload, and often used as a dive bomber and close support roles. Frankly, I put it in the light bomber class in part so I could justify mentioning it as a good also ran. As a "medium bomber" it would not hold a candle to the B-25, and in terms of defensive armament, I would consider it below the Martin B-26.

 

[zoomar]

Me thinks that we should agree about the main issue of a bomber belonging in one or other class: is it the empty/equipped weight, bomb load over distance, or official nomenclature.

Eg. Germans called 47-ton Panther tank medium, while Americans called 42-ton M-26 heavy, then Italians called 26-ton P-26/40 heavy tank - point being nomenclature is not consistent for all beligernents of the same war.

Good luck getting people to agree, since it is (and maybe should be) somewhat subjective. Personally, I would have trouble with any single criterion, since there are always exceptions. It is a combination of traits, among which is, in my mind, overall size (wingspan/length), number of engines, and crew size/distribution, as well as the factors you suggest. The late war experimental Martin Mixmaster (effectively a single engine planform with only two crew) was more capable as a "heavy bomber" in most performance measures than the classic B-17, but I wouldn't call it a heavy bomber when it was sharing the skies with B-29s and B-32s.

 

[tomo pauk]

Care to share why B-25 was so vastly better as a bomber then Ju-88 (though I agree it was slightly better).

Re. B-26 vs. Ju-88, the former was bombing it's 1st targets cca 3 years (=half war away) after Ju-88 did, and the only advantage are the better (yet not sufficient) defensive guns. By that time Germans had Do-217 that was better than B-26.

German twin-engined bombers really lacked powerful engines US counterparts had in the same time-frame, for the most part of war.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Me thinks that we should agree about the main issue of a bomber belonging in one or other class: is it the empty/equipped weight, bomb load over distance, or official nomenclature.

In the day it was the difference between size and bomb load

Eg. Germans called 47-ton Panther tank medium, while Americans called 42-ton M-26 heavy, then Italians called 26-ton P-26/40 heavy tank - point being nomenclature is not consistent for all beligernents of the same war.

Using tanks to compare bomber classification is apples and oranges. Different equipment and even those who developed each machine have different education backgrounds...

Good luck getting people to agree, since it is (and maybe should be) somewhat subjective. Personally, I would have trouble with any single criterion, since there are always exceptions. It is a combination of traits, among which is, in my mind, overall size (wingspan/length), number of engines, and crew size/distribution, as well as the factors you suggest. The late war experimental Martin Mixmaster (effectively a single engine planform with only two crew) was more capable as a "heavy bomber" in most performance measures than the classic B-17, but I wouldn't call it a heavy bomber when it was sharing the skies with B-29s and B-32s.

I rate the B-29 the best and greatest for several reasons. Not only was it a technical leap as far as heavy bombers, but besides its "nuclear bomber" legacy, it set the benchmark for bomber AND commercial aircraft for the next 30 years. Flying in TWO wars, the Soviets copied it and the Chinese still fly it.

BTW - Martin didn't build the Mixmaster, Douglas did...

 

[tomo pauk]

'My' classification for WW2:
1 engine - light bomber
2/3 engines - medium bomber (called 'heavy' by Japanese )
4 and more - heavy bomber

...and I stick to that

 

[FLYBOYJ]

'My' classification for WW2:
1 engine - light bomber
2/3 engines - medium bomber (called 'heavy' by Japanese )
4 and more - heavy bomber

...and I stick to that

That sounds much better!

 

[tomo pauk]

In the day it was the difference between size and bomb load

Then 'my' classification just might hold

Using tanks to compare bomber classification is apples and oranges. Different equipment and even those who developed each machine have different education backgrounds...

I've stated tanks to show that nomenclature old 70 years might not be a gospel The Japs called their 2-engines bombers as heavy, so no apples oranges there.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I've stated tanks to show that nomenclature old 70 years might not be a gospel The Japs called their 2-engines bombers as heavy, so no apples oranges there.

In the 1920s and 30s twin engine aircraft were the "heavies" of the day as the technology was not fully there for the building of 4 engine heavy bombers. The Boeing Model 299 broke through the cast, but there were many who initially felt that a four engine aircraft were too complicated and not practical.

Look at the development of bomber aircraft through the early 1930s and you can see why twin engine bombers were initially classified as "heavy." Examine their size, speeds and bomb load and it's pretty clear that until we stated seeing B-17s, Lancasters, Sterlings and B-24s being built why there aircraft were considered heavy bombers.

BTW, when the B-36 and later aircraft were introduced in the USAF, the B-29 was re-classified as a "medium" bomber. When the B-29 was first introduced it was classified as a "Very Heavy Bomber."

 

[tomo pauk]

Yep, that's why I've put 'my' nomenclature in WW2 time frame

 

[Shortround6]

Yep, that's why I've put 'my' nomenclature in WW2 time frame

For the British you a the twin Blenheim, a light bomber.
The Hampden, a medium bomber.
The Wellington, a meduim/heavy.
And the Whitley, a heavy bomber.

All twins, All, at least in the original versions, with engines under 1000hp but with bomb loads ranging from 1000lbs to 7000lbs per plane. Wing area varied from 469 sq ft to 1137 sq ft.

 

[zoomar]

'My' classification for WW2:
1 engine - light bomber
2/3 engines - medium bomber (called 'heavy' by Japanese )
4 and more - heavy bomber

...and I stick to that

That's as good as any as far as I'm concerned...except for the Mossie, which just isn't a medium bomber.. It also comes somewhat apart when considering planes like the Fw200 ( a "bomber" with 4-engines, but not really a heavy bomber in the classic sense). But it probably reflects the general layman's reality as well as anything. Size matters.

 

[zoomar]

BTW - Martin didn't build the Mixmaster, Douglas did...

Oops, stupid me!