soc.history.war.world-war-ii

On Feb 21, 8:15am, "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?).
>
> 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).
>
> 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?

The B-26 was faster, carried a larger bomb load , had a greater rsnge
and was better armored against flak. In fact it had the best survival
record of any plane in WW II including the B-17.