Best WW2 twin engine bombers

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

18 years 1 month

Posts: 40

Send private message

By: davek128 - 3rd April 2007 at 02:32

in your opinion, what are the five best twin engine bombers of WW2.

my list...

1. B-25 Tokyo raider
2. B-26
3. Dehaviland Mosquito
4. Heinkel HE-111
5. Mitsubishi Betty

Original post

Member for

24 years 7 months

Posts: 6,208

Send private message

By: Ja Worsley - 3rd April 2007 at 03:56 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Guess you posted this in the wrong section mate

By: Anonymous - 3rd April 2007 at 06:57 - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:23

Despite not being in the historic forum, my favourite twin engine bombers of WWII were in order:

1: Tu-2
2: Il-4
3: Pe-3
4: Pe-2
5: SB-2

Member for

24 years 7 months

Posts: 11,742

Send private message

By: Sens - 3rd April 2007 at 09:58 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Arado Ar-234

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 904

Send private message

By: kilcoo316 - 3rd April 2007 at 10:32 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

In order:

1. DH Mosquito
2. Ju-88

Both of the above were used for more than just bombing, and both were excellent light bombers.

3. Me 262, it was a fighter bomber, while easily the 'best' bomber of WW2 in terms of survivability on a strike mission, it never had a chance to make an impact unlike the above two.
4. B-25
5. Pe-2

Member for

24 years 7 months

Posts: 4,450

Send private message

By: frankvw - 3rd April 2007 at 11:45 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Moved to a more appropriate place.

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 9,852

Send private message

By: J Boyle - 3rd April 2007 at 17:07 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

In no firm order:

Mosquito
B-25
Ju-88

I'll admit I don't know a lot about the Betty...but from what I've read: good performance but lacking in armour (what good is a plane if it's a deathtrap in combat?).

That opens up the debate as to what makes a "best" airplane?
I would think it would be more than just performance, numbers built or nationality. Effectiveness, flying qualityies, loss rate, and versitility all come into play.

Also consideration might have to be given to the A-20 (handy in a variety of roles and used by a lot of forces) and the late war Douglas A-26...very good performance and the only one of the group with significant post war use.

Member for

24 years 7 months

Posts: 4,508

Send private message

By: EN830 - 3rd April 2007 at 17:13 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Oh great another what or which is best thread :(

Member for

24 years 7 months

Posts: 6,968

Send private message

By: kev35 - 3rd April 2007 at 17:40 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

davek128 has asked which are the "five best twin engine bombers of WW2."

On what criteria are these aircraft to be judged?

Performance?
Quantity built?
Longevity of service?
The opinions of the crews who flew them?
Aesthetic qualities?
Serviceability?

Or are we just looking at such ephemeral qualities as which is your favourite?

If we're taking it seriously should we discount every axis aircraft as clearly they couldn't have been the best or I'd be typing this in German or Japanese.

It's a pointless exercise as there are far too many factors to be taken into account to come to an honest and dispassionate conclusion.

Can't come up with a list but for longevity of service, how about the humble Wellington? Still used in the bombing role until well in 1944.

Regards,

kev35

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 263

Send private message

By: Kenbo - 3rd April 2007 at 22:27 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

no body has yet mentioned the 'wispering death'.......

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 550

Send private message

By: JägerMarty - 4th April 2007 at 11:37 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Mossie, JU88 and Beaufighter for me:)

Member for

24 years 7 months

Posts: 16,832

Send private message

By: Moggy C - 4th April 2007 at 12:11 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I still have no idea what 'best' means either.

The Mosquito, JU88 and Pe2 are all well thought of.

Moggy

Member for

24 years 7 months

Posts: 16,832

Send private message

By: Moggy C - 4th April 2007 at 12:12 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

no body has yet mentioned the 'whispering death'.......

It might have helped if had been called the Bristol Beaubomber.

As it is, its name almost certainly disqualifies it from consideration.

Moggy

By: Anonymous - 6th April 2007 at 01:08 - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:23

The only problem with "best of" threads is when the purpose of the thread is to actually find the best of through consensus. In this case however the first post clearly states that this thread is about personal opinion... what do you think is the best. As long as no one bowls in and claims someone else is wrong, or their opinion is stupid because... there shouldn't be any problems. Of course it might have been better if in the first thread it said discuss what you like about your favourites rather than just listing them, but that is completely up to the person who started this thread.

BTW regarding twin engine WWII bombers, have recently read an article about lend lease A-20s and about how the Soviets got about as many as anyone else got, which was several thousand, and the author of the article couldn't understand why the Soviets weren't more grateful. It also mentioned how the A-20 was pivotal in stalingrad. Of course it never mentions why it was pivotal in the battle of stalingrad, as winning air superiority over that area was the most important contribution in that theatre, while shooting down transport aircraft was the next big contribution... neither of which involved A-20s. Considering the Soviets were asking for B-17s and B-29s so they could attack Germany, because they already had plenty of twin engine bombers anyway it is no great surprise they weren't over the moon about getting Bostons instead... especially when they had bombsights that were so crap they replaced them with their own bomb sights.

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 9,852

Send private message

By: J Boyle - 6th April 2007 at 01:34 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Considering the Soviets were asking for B-17s and B-29s so they could attack Germany,

Don't read much of a sinister conspiracy intgo the Soviets not getting B-29s....remember the USAAF was having trouble getting them and keeping them in the air. Any security issues aside, I doubt if the Soviets could have maintained them so far away from US suppliers. I say that not out of disrespect to the Russians, but rather as a practical matter of logistics.
Not to mention by the time the B-29 was available, the RAF and USAAF had pretty well bombed everything worth bombing in Germany.
Now if they were offering to bomb Japan...they might have gotten a different response at least for any request for B-17s.

Bostons instead... especially when they had bombsights that were so crap they replaced them with their own bomb sights.

Again...remember that the members of Doolittle's raid made their own low bomb sights for low level ops.

But if they had received B-29s, it would have made the Tu-4 program a bit easier. :D

By: Anonymous - 6th April 2007 at 02:30 - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:23

Don't read much of a sinister conspiracy intgo the Soviets not getting B-29s....remember the USAAF was having trouble getting them and keeping them in the air.

I never said anything about a conspiracy. I was explaining the lack of enthusiasum regarding the A-20s in Soviet service. A bit like the US asking the Soviets for assistance in transporting stuff to Afghanistan and Iraq because of the cost of the C-17 and problems with C-5 and the Soviets offering An-12s. Of course the An-12 is a fine aircraft and has many useful features, but it isn't an Il-76 or An-124.
The article tried to suggest that the soviets would not have survived the war without the A-20s, yet they already had plenty of twin engine bombers in the same class as the A-20 already in production and service, what they lacked is what they asked for and never got. (under lend lease anyway...)

[quote]Any security issues aside, I doubt if the Soviets could have maintained them so far away from US suppliers. I say that not out of disrespect to the Russians, but rather as a practical matter of logistics.
[/quote

Once the Soviets had gotten their hands on a B-29 I doubt they would have wasted time making a direct copy like the Tu-4. The urgency for the Tu-4 came from the end of WWII and the start of the cold war with the Soviets without a long range bomber. If the Soviets had a B-29 in the middle of 1943 or a B-17 earlier they probably would simply have used most of them to bomb Berlin, but a few would have been examined and the technology copied... if they got B-17s they probably would have made their own successor and not needed any B-29s except to look at. Equally if they had gotten B-29s they wouldn't have copied it directly, they would have used existing copies and designed an entirely new design based on the knowledge gained. As such maintainence wouldn't have been a problem any more than maintainence with the Tu-4 for which they got no spares or support at all from the US with was dealt with... and no that is not a dig at the USAF to suggest they might have problems but the Soviets wouldn't. :D