soc.history.war.world-war-ii

Branek wrote:

> Why did the US bother manufacturing and training flight crews for the B-26
> Marauder when
> the B-25 Mitchell was the better plane? Sure the B-26 had a 10MPH faster top
> speed but does
> that really make any difference in a bomber? The B-25 could carry a larger
> bomb load farther at
> a faster cruising speed (I'm guessing cruising speed is the ideal speed to
> minimize fuel consumption
> of a loaded bomber?).

I suppose one reason was that they used different engines. Standardizing
the rest of aircraft would not have helped as much since you still would
have had to maintain two different engines. Another reason was probably
that initially the B-26 promised a larger performance advantage than
what was realized in practice and once production was going, it made no
sense to disrupt it.

> On a similar note, if the B-24 Liberator wasn't as good as the B-17 than why
> bother manufacturing
> it? Why not just stick w/the better plane?

Actually the B-24 was in most respects the better of the two. It could
carry a heavier bomb load farther at higher altitude. The actual losses
to interceptors were also similar, but the crews liked the B-17 more,
since they felt that it was more rugged and reliable. Later it has been
speculated that a light-weight version of the B-24 with only nose and
tail turrets would have actually been the optimal configuration
especially for escorted missions. Post-war experience showed that draggy
defensive armament was not usually worth the drag, since it slowed down
the bomber and reduced practical bomb loads.


Tero P. Mustalahti