![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ArtKramr wrote:
ubject: Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944 From: Guy Alcala As Chris points out, both the B-25 and B-26 were so used, in the PTO, MTO, and ETO (not the B-25), in the early stages. High loss rates led to the move to medium The B-26's were used on the deck with terrible results and were almost instantly pulled up to 10,000 feet. That "instantly" took several months in the MTO and the PTO. It took two missions, both to Ijmuiden, in the ETO, with the second mission suffering 100% losses (1 a/c aborted and was the only one to return). After that the B-26 were the only mediums used in the ETO replacing the slower, shorter range, smaller bombload B-25's. As I stated, the B-25s were never used in the ETO; the B-26s didn't replace them. The only time that one replaced the other in any theater was in the PTO, where the B-25 replaced the B-26. As to speed and range, we've been through this before. Speeds of the B-25 and B-26 models used in the MTO and ETO were comparable, a couple of mph either way, with the difference so small as to be lost in individual a/c variations. The B-26 and B-26As used in the PTO and the early B-26Bs used in the MTO were faster than the contemporary B-25s, but that changed once the long wing came in on the B-26B-10 and subsequent models. As to range, the B-25C and later models were longer-ranged than the B-26, although the B-26 and B-26A were longer-ranged than the B-25 up through the 'B' model. Hardly surprising, as the B-26 (all models) had normal max. internal fuel of 962 gallons, while the early B-25s only had 670 gallons. But from the B-25C and D models on, the B-25 carried 974 gallons internally, vice the B-26's 962. Combined with its smaller, less thirsty engines, the B-25 (C and later) range was better than the B-26. The B-26's normal max bombload was greater, by 1,000 lb. (4,000 vs. 3,000). The B-26 rendered the B-25's obsolescent. Tey were both ordered out of the same design competition, and the B-26 was removed from production before the B-25 was, which says a lot about about which was considered more valuable to the war effort. If that's being rendered obsolescent in your book, then most a/c would be happy to be obsolescent. Of course, with the coming of jets they were both obsolescent, as were all piston-engined a/c, but that's a different matter entirely. Guy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
regaining night currency but not alone | Teacherjh | Instrument Flight Rules | 11 | May 28th 04 02:08 PM |
Did the Germans have the Norden bombsight? | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 106 | May 12th 04 07:18 AM |
Why was the Fokker D VII A Good Plane? | Matthew G. Saroff | Military Aviation | 111 | May 4th 04 05:34 PM |
Night of the bombers - the most daring special mission of Finnishbombers in WW2 | Jukka O. Kauppinen | Military Aviation | 4 | March 22nd 04 11:19 PM |
Why did Britain win the BoB? | Grantland | Military Aviation | 79 | October 15th 03 03:34 PM |