soc.history.war.world-war-ii

Briarroot wrote:
> 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?

If you were willing to settle for "one size fits all" in your combat
aircraft, you'd end us with a force that was at best good at everything but
that excelled at nothing. Wars in the air aren't won that way.