soc.history.war.world-war-ii

"Branek" wrote in message
news:VZ9vj.11968$Ch6.6103@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> Why did the US bother manufacturing and training flight crews for
> the B-26 Marauder when the B-25 Mitchell was the better plane?

It depends on your definition of better. The main reason was both
types were meant to do the same job in case one turned out to be
a failure and production lines take a long time to set up and tear
down and neither design was a failure. Both began production in
early 1941.

The USAAF standardised on the B-26 in north west Europe,
which was the most dangerous theatre. The US made almost
twice as many B-25s as B-26s (9,816 to 5,157), the B-26
production line was shut down in March 1945 (the last 4
acceptances in April) the B-25 continued production until
the end of the war in the Pacific.

The early B-26 bomb load was 4,800 pounds, cut to 3,000
pounds then back to 4,000 pounds in the main G model. The
B-25 load was 3,000 pounds. The B-25 had about a 200
mile range advantage over the B-26.

So it seems both had something going for them, though the
decision to use the B-25 in the Pacific undoubtedly played
a part in production shut downs.

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

The early B-26 came in at around 315 mph top speed and
then lost 30 mph to various add ons, the early B-25 also
did around 315 mph and lost 30 mph then 40 mph to add ons.

> The B-25 could carry a larger bomb load farther at
> a faster cruising speed

Again early cruising speeds were similar but in a reverse to
top speeds the B-26 lost more, down to around 215 mph
versus 230 mph.

> (I'm guessing cruising speed is the ideal speed to minimize fuel
> consumption of a loaded bomber?).

The definition is basically correct.

> 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:
>
> a. training maintenance personnel
> b. spare parts (you don't have as many to produce, warehouse or ship
> overseas)
> c. training pilots (especially WRT the Widowmaker).

The USAAF did so to an extent, using the B-24 and B-25 in
the Pacific, and the B-26 in North West Europe, though the
RAF used the B-25 there.

As noted the two designs were not so startlingly superior to the
other that the loss of production was worth the effort of changing
over.

Also note part of the reason the B-26 lost performance was
to give it better landing and take off characteristics.

> 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?

Better is the key. In Europe the B-17 was much liked because it
could operate at higher altitudes than the B-24, thus making it harder
to intercept or hit with flak.

In the Pacific the B-24's superior range with a given bomb load was
the more important, given the average altitude was lower and the
chances of interception and flak concentrations lower.

All air forces needed a couple of designs per category, to spread
the risk load on one being a dud, and to take advantage of the
various different ideas. It was not until well after the shooting
started that best could be better defined and in the end best is
usually determined by what mission is going to be flown.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.