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?

That is debatable. Better plane? How so?



Sure the B-26 had a 10MPH faster top
> speed but does
> that really make any difference in a bomber?

When a Zero is on your tail, every litle bit helps.


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?).
>
> Considering the early problems w/the Marauders it seems to me it would've
> made better sense to just standardize on the B-25. It seems like such
> standardization would make
> life easier in such areas as:

Snip

Basic problem was production. North American was also building Mustangs
& At-6's. Martin, was able to produce a good plane at need capacity. So
far I don't see a problem

>
> 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?
>


Again production. Consolidated could build more B24's. As for being
better? The B-24 had many pros over the B-17. So one could say the B24
was the better plane.