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
> ... [snips]
> 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?
>

It wasn't immediately clear which aircraft would turn out to be superior
at the point in time when the Air Force procurement officers first
contracted to have these aircraft built. Many of the problems you
outlined above weren't deemed significant until after hundreds or even
thousands of planes had been in service for some time. Hindsight is
always 20/20.

It simply wasn't all that obvious which aircraft was "better" and since
each different manufacturer was already set up to produce its own
designs, switching over would have introduced production delays at a
time when there was an urgent need to get new aircraft into the air for
pilot training and combat. These aircraft were modified many times over
the course of their production runs and many of those modifications were
intended to address the kinds of things you have noted, but much of what
now appears so simple is the result of lengthy post-war analysis.
Hindsight is always 20/20.

Was supply and maintenance more difficult than it might have been had
there been one standard fighter, bomber, tank, etc? Sure it was, but
notice that nearly every nation in WW2 experienced this same phenomenon.
Why do you suppose that was?