I met a man who was a pilot during World War II, who flew both the B-26 and the B-25. He began flying in the B-26, and after they were withdrawn from service flew B-25s for a short time as they were being phased out. He preferred the B-26 as being the higher performer of the two, but admitted the B-25 was much more forgiving, and easier to fly.
I can corroborate your comments. I talked to a really great pilot and long-time Boeing Employees Flying Association instructor, Cliff Smith, and he echoes your words. The B-26 had more teething issues at the beginning of the war. They weighted it down quite a bit with armament. But when they came out with the R2800, the B-26 was much better. The B-25 was much more docile to handle as it could fly at a slower speed, which is helpful when you're in a landing or slow flight configuration.
I find it interesting on how all aspects and operations of the US military during WWII were thoroughly documented and studied. And also all of the documentation and review was done the old school way with manually operated typewriters, slide rulers and slide calculators, manual calculations, etc.
Most nations did analysis, but the USA seems to have assigned (or had more to assign) more resources to it and done a more complete job. Some analysis has turned out to be over optimistic or inaccurate, but it looks to have broadly stood the test of time. What is particularly evident is that USA statistics are FAR better presented than other Allied nations. The aircraft manuals are generally better too.
@jimmiller5600 I'm British, but in terms of breadth and quality of presentation, the USA had the edge. There are a few places I might suggest that British research was more accurate, and the use of sampling theory to determine production numbers via serial numbers was impressive.
I was surprised that there was no reference made to the use of the modified B-25 strafer a/c in the Pacific. The 345th Bomb Group (Air Apaches) created havoc with low level strafing against ground and naval targets from 1943 -45. The group history book details the use of "skip" bombing as an exponentially more accurate technique against naval vessels than traditional medium altitude level bombing while field modifications of the addition of up to a dozen forward firing .50 caliber machine guns was also effective against airfields, smaller ships and assorted ground targets. I am not aware that B-26 were employed in a similar manner in either the European or Pacific areas.
Seems like the USAF knew that the B-26 and B-25 were not efficient or effective for the role they were expected to fill, but, they were also of the opinion that they had to keep medium bombers in the field because there was no alternative. Very interesting video.
When I was a wee lad, I thought the B-25 looked positively ancient and fuddy duddy compared to the sleek modern B-26. It wasn't until much later that I learned some specs and realized he B-25 was a better plane. But n my defense, I probably was confused by the later A-26 which was renamed to B-26 and was a whole lot better than the B-25.
@@buff123 even more so when you realise it developed from an A-series design. But the B-26 was intended to be very different but it didn't get the hoped-for engine, getting only about 2/3 of what it was designed to have.
The medium bomber was a prewar concept and doctrine that was outdated and not the best use of resources in actual combat. Heavy fighters were more flexible and productive against smaller targets, and heavy bombers were more productive against larger targets. When Jimmy Doolittle took command of the North African air force he told Hap Arnold that he did not want any more medium bombers and wanted heavy bombers instead. There was a tug of war for heavy bomber production between the Mediterranean and UK Army air forces.
So, it was Heavier, More expensive, less reliable, more dangerous to fly, and less survivable than the B-25, and was neither faster nor able to carry larger bomb load. Not great stats.
Dad was a waist gunner in a B-26, he never said anything bad about it. The B-26 did bring him home. He was late war, '44-'45. He did mention the flak and he carried German steel in his body.
I was at home in the UK during the 50th anniversary of D-Day when I heard several aircraft engines and when I looked up there were three B-26 Marauders flying passed. A big but welcome surprise.
One a day in Tampa Bay. The B26 had Curtiss electric props. The crew chiefs would test cycle the props off the batteries. Later the plane was started by a start cart. During flight when the props were synchronized, the depleted batteries went flat, so did the props and splash. The whole nation was going up the learning curve. Many planes were lost due to screw ups, like using the wrong grade of gas, or maintenance errors, and green crews. The B26 loaded take off speed was ~150mph and cruise around 200. Not a lot of margin.
In his autobiography, (I Could Never be so Lucky Again,) Doolittle describes how, as commander of the 12th Air Force in North Africa, he would visit the B-26 units and give demonstration flights. While in flight, he would shut down one engine, then fly the plane. Then restart that engine and shut down the other. This to inform the pilots that with proper training and confidence they could safely fly the B-26.
Twin engine planes are notorious for 'torque rolling' into the ground on final approach with one engine out. The smaller wing area of the early B-26 made it particularly vulnerable. Add pilots with not so much experience and...
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles did a post "B-26 Unsafe at any Speed" covered the problem with losing an engine on takeoff or landing. Gen. Jimmy Doolittle (greatest aviator in history IMHO) doing a demonstration for new pilots would be like Michael Jordan showing middle school kids how easy it is to dunk a basketball!
Would be great to see a similar comparison in '44 & '45, once they actually figured out how to maintain and utilize the B-26 and lowered its sortie loss ratio to be the best in the USAAF.
This is what I had always understood as well, that ultimately the B26 was the most survivable aircraft in the US inventory. “Flak Bait” in the NASM with 206 missions to its credit would also seem to bear this out.
@dgott7726 it's tricky, as you have to look at equivalent missions as much as possible (something brought up in B-17 to B-24 comparisons). The B-25 flew a lot of ground and sea attack missions in the PTO which had a high loss rate. Equally, the B-26 did a fair few low level missions in the ETO, notably on D-Day. Although the B-26 had the lowest final loss rate of any bomber in WW2, selecting a number of missions for each that match is the better metric. This having been said, the USAAF would also factor in bombs on target - so a 50% higher loss rate per sortie might be acceptable if effects on target were double, for example. Or even twice the loss rate might be accepted as in war time is factor, so being able to take out a target in one raid rather than two a couple of days apart might be worth it.
Gotta love the nicknames for the B-26: "One a day into Tampa Bay" and "The Baltimore Whore" (With the relatively small wings, it had no visible means of support, and Martin was based in... Baltimore.) Mumble years ago, there was a guy in one of the old Usenet newsgroups who had been a B-26 Bombardier in the ETO until he transitioned to the A-26 right at the end of the war. He had some amazing stories.
@@CecilHabermacher the A-26 had a difficult start as the lateral visibility was poor which made flying in formation less safe than it should have been. Fantastic performance, though.
Another great video but I have a question. I have read and heard in other reports that the loss rate in combat of B-26's was the lowest of any U.S. aircraft, but the data you showed us does not reflect these statements. I am assuming the data you have given is correct and the other reports are not backed up by the facts, unless there is another explanation. I got very excited you mentioned the A-26 today. I hope we will be getting a video on the roles and effectiveness of both the A-20 and A-26 soon. I can only assume a Luftwaffe airbase would be very unhappy to be on the receiving end of an interdiction flight by these aircraft but how effective were they in the destruction of the Luftwaffe?
It doesn't reflect the reality because he cherry-picked reports from the earliest portion of the B-26 combat history, in a time period when B-26s were in use against heavily defended strategic targets while B-25 was in use against soft targets and for maritime patrol; then comparing the loss rates as if they are in any way equivalent.
I thought I had read somewhere, years ago, of a B-25 claiming an air-to-air kill, but not from the usual defensive guns, rather by being flown offensively the way a fighter would be flown. Can't find any reference to it anywhere though.
Two words: Flak Bait. A B-26B Marauder with 202 combat missions and 750 hours in the ETO with zero crew losses. Came back twice on 1 engine and more than 1000 bullet strikes. I'd bet if you did a detailed analysis of Marauder vs. Mitchell missions, the Marauders were assigned the more difficult missions. Flying a heavy bomber at medium altitude in the ETO was a death sentence.
According to my father-in-law, his squadron of B-26s flew a great many low level missions in the ETO after Normandy. Attacking bridges and rail lines to interdict supplies and prevent vehicles from making it to the front. He loved the B-26, but said the low level flying was terrifying.
Just to be picky (I love your channel) ... the 40% cost difference between the aircraft doesn't mean you need a 40% premium on performance. This is because the crews (of 6) are more costly than the aircraft itself. The cost difference probably warrants nearer a 15% or 20% improvement to justify the cost.......
From my understanding, since the B26 was mass produced straight off the drawing board without even prototypes being built there was always going to be serious issues. This was the initial root of the problem with its high loss and accident rates. And as the data provided, much off it was gathered prior to the work that went into sorting the B26 out. The main change being an increased wing span that helped things considerably. If I’m not mistaken, certainly after those changes the loss rate improved and it became a much safer aircraft. As for the bombing accuracy, I can’t recall how that improved as the aircraft should have been more a more stable platform, for a 2 engined medium bomber. Both aircraft were good but I do remember reading pilots recalling the B26 as a hot rod especially when it was lightened without bombs etc. Never heard anything like that about the Mitchell.
The combat losses can't be compared directly, because they were often used differently. The B26 was more maneuverable and more rugged. So the B25 was better only when no one was shooting at you.
Trivia: The B-26's epithet "Flying Prostitute" was a comment on its original small wings. The B-26 was a huge aircraft, it wasn't that much smaller than a B-17, in fact the fuselage had a lot more girth. Yet it had relatively small wings. So the joke goes that "ladies of the night" have no job during the daytime, when everyone else works, yet they can always pay their bills on time.... that is, they have no visible means of support.... like the B-26 and its tiny wings.
Great, gritty study on these two planes. The proportion of armament/crew weight to aircraft weight is so much higher on a US medium bomber that on a heavy bomber. This carries the penalty of either reduced fuel load, or reduced bomb load. Also, over occupied Europe, the flak at the operational altitudes at which these mediums were used, was murderous. At least for the B-25, it's service in the Pacific was exemplary. I was surprised to find out how expensive these planes were, when compared to a 4-engined heavy.
There was a pilot of a B-26 that retired at my hometown and he said the most nervous he was flying it was during the takeoff. It had a relatively fast takeoff speed and if you lost an engine the torque(?) from the one at full power would turn you off the runway. Fully loaded it was almost unsurvivable. I believe he told me B-26 but could have been an A-26.
The single engine take-off safety speed was very, very, critical. You must have a high enough airspeed (and thus, rudder authority) to overcome the tendency of the “working” engine not to pull, or yaw the plane towards the dead engine. The P-38, having engines that rotated outboard, had two “critical” engines; that is, the outboard portion of the down-going blade produced more thrust due to the increased angle of attack (asymmetric disc loading) and being so far out on the wing, the arm was a lot greater, so the single engine safety speed was also quite high for that plane. Every multi-engined aircraft has a vsse, if the airspeed is insufficient, along with a heavy load, pushing on the rudder to the stops will not stop a plane from falling off on a wing. That’s it in a nutshell.
The B-25 had the 12-50 cal nose version for strafing in the pacific. Even the 75mm cannon version. Otherwise they were so similar as bombers. Saw docs of B-26 pilots talking about how hard it could be to fly and the high landing to stall speed. It wasn’t a bad plane, but if we should have went with one or the other, the B-25 for the whole war was the way to go…
Often wondered how much performance increase the B25 would have had IF it had of gotten the later PW R2800 engine ??? The B25 got the Wright R2600 engine because it was AVAILABLE earlier than the R2800........yet the B25's performance seemed to equal the B26 and was easier to fly !!!
All that was use in the ETO, what about in the Pacific? My impression is the B-25 was more heavily used in the pacific, and was more effective compared to heavy bombers (until the B-29 came along), but is that accurate?
It's plausible, simply because there were very few targets suitable for strategic bombing. Island bases were the only useful B-17 and B-24 targets, whereas B-25s and B-26s were great anti-shipping bombers.
Why the difference in man-hours to produce & final unit cost to the government between these 2 medium bombers? Was Martin’s B26 a more complex design to build or did North American have a better system for mass production? Possibly the answer is a little of both. Only the USA during WW2 could afford to produce 2 heavy bombers, 2 medium bombers and how many different fighter types.
Looking at most aspects, the B-25 was very much an example of ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ it carried a decent ordinance load. The B-26 doesn’t improve much on the B-25 in performance and bomb load
This goes a long ways to explaining why B 25s work well in the Pacific. Much less AA. Far easier to attack a ship than a ground target ringed with AA. Also anti shipping work fit the medium well.
I often see other really interesting things in the tables and data you include and here's today's example: (0:45) In the table...Medium bombers......B-25, ok....B-26, yeah....Wait, what the heck's a B-42? I check Wikipedia and there it is....The Douglas Mixmaster.....Two contra-rotating pusher propellers on the extreme rear, behind the tail planes, on a medium bomber, with engines inside the fuselage, and defensive guns folded into the trailing edges of the wings... Umm, wow. Ok...
This comparison needs to get into the weeds with respect to differences in use. See John Bruning's "Indestructible" as well as other sources. Spaatz, Tedder and Doolittle apparently never met Kenny and Gunn.
How to report favourable ‘evidence’ for a particular slant!, these ‘1943’ reports are obviously from the more lightly engaged, inexperienced and naive pre-war tactics influenced time period up to the end of that _for the USAAF_ early war. The significant air force build up was much later and with crew combat experience and more appropriate advanced training the hotter B-26 turned out to be a great success. In addition to the continuous accumulation of higher empty weights sapping performance, the medium bombers were also flown at much more dangerous lower altitudes resulting in reduced true air and ground speeds which greatly increased their vulnerability to enemy fighters and anti aircraft artillery. The German fighters were more competitive at those medium altitudes with their less sophisticated engine supercharging.
Kermit Weeks has a B 26 that's airworthy at Fantasy Of Flight. Then there's Flakbait that's been preserved at the Smithsonian, in it's final combat condition, everything that is done to that airframe is done towards preservation not restoration there are still patched up bullet holes from combat that are visible, the paint is still original.
All valid facts. But that 1:72 Airfix B25 with the 75mm howitzer in the nose ... that was the business. And the B26 model with all the .50 guns on the side of the plane, near the cockpit. Oh boy. Painted in DDay stripes, that was a real nice looking model. The things the Yanks did to their B25's for attacking barges off of New Guinea, that was nasty. And when the invasion started and McArthur said - shoot the swimmers, three days in a row, well, that was total war. Maybe a little pay back too.
I can speculate that going into the war the US didn't know what design might work best. Then clear performance data was available on the back half of the war and that generated what we see today. It's more obvious to us now than it was to them early in the war.
As a rule of thumb, any plane called "The Widow Maker" should be flown with caution!. The B-26 was singled out by the Truman Committee report as an example of a defective product being delivered to the military due to its high loss and accident rate. Martin knew that making the wing larger would solve a lot of the problems with the B-26 but took no action until pretty much forced to.
The Truman Committee was political theatre designed to increase the political profile of one Harry S Truman. The B-26 suffered from being rushed straight from the drawing board into production and then dropped into flight training system that didn't know how to deal with the engine out emergencies. That and faulty maintenance procedures that lead to frequent failures of the Curtis Electric props the B-26 was equipped with. It took alot of work to correct the real problems and its bad reputation but it turned out to be extremely successful when used as it was intended - medium altitude bombing.
I met a man who was a pilot during World War II, who flew both the B-26 and the B-25. He began flying in the B-26, and after they were withdrawn from service flew B-25s for a short time as they were being phased out. He preferred the B-26 as being the higher performer of the two, but admitted the B-25 was much more forgiving, and easier to fly.
I can corroborate your comments. I talked to a really great pilot and long-time Boeing Employees Flying Association instructor, Cliff Smith, and he echoes your words. The B-26 had more teething issues at the beginning of the war. They weighted it down quite a bit with armament. But when they came out with the R2800, the B-26 was much better. The B-25 was much more docile to handle as it could fly at a slower speed, which is helpful when you're in a landing or slow flight configuration.
I find it interesting on how all aspects and operations of the US military during WWII were thoroughly documented and studied. And also all of the documentation and review was done the old school way with manually operated typewriters, slide rulers and slide calculators, manual calculations, etc.
Most nations did analysis, but the USA seems to have assigned (or had more to assign) more resources to it and done a more complete job. Some analysis has turned out to be over optimistic or inaccurate, but it looks to have broadly stood the test of time.
What is particularly evident is that USA statistics are FAR better presented than other Allied nations. The aircraft manuals are generally better too.
We were the rich kids and had big oceans between us and our foes
That's how you get good at war. By keeping track of what works and not through numbers.
The Brits were good with operations research too.
@jimmiller5600 I'm British, but in terms of breadth and quality of presentation, the USA had the edge. There are a few places I might suggest that British research was more accurate, and the use of sampling theory to determine production numbers via serial numbers was impressive.
I was surprised that there was no reference made to the use of the modified B-25 strafer a/c in the Pacific. The 345th Bomb Group (Air Apaches) created havoc with low level strafing against ground and naval targets from 1943 -45. The group history book details the use of "skip" bombing as an exponentially more accurate technique against naval vessels than traditional medium altitude level bombing while field modifications of the addition of up to a dozen forward firing .50 caliber machine guns was also effective against airfields, smaller ships and assorted ground targets. I am not aware that B-26 were employed in a similar manner in either the European or Pacific areas.
The B25 played an important role in the Battle of the Bismarck sea strafing and skip bombing.
I don't know how this channel does not have more subscribers. Love the content.
I've thought the same. I've learnt more from this channel than any other I can think of and I follow a number of excellent channels.
My father was a B-26 pilot (63 missions). He loved that "hot" plane and said it was best plane in the war.
@@nandi123 that's a lot of missions!
Badass
Seems like the USAF knew that the B-26 and B-25 were not efficient or effective for the role they were expected to fill, but, they were also of the opinion that they had to keep medium bombers in the field because there was no alternative. Very interesting video.
Great analysis!
The B-25 really seems to be an ourstanding airplane.
When I was a wee lad, I thought the B-25 looked positively ancient and fuddy duddy compared to the sleek modern B-26. It wasn't until much later that I learned some specs and realized he B-25 was a better plane. But n my defense, I probably was confused by the later A-26 which was renamed to B-26 and was a whole lot better than the B-25.
@@buff123 even more so when you realise it developed from an A-series design. But the B-26 was intended to be very different but it didn't get the hoped-for engine, getting only about 2/3 of what it was designed to have.
The medium bomber was a prewar concept and doctrine that was outdated and not the best use of resources in actual combat. Heavy fighters were more flexible and productive against smaller targets, and heavy bombers were more productive against larger targets. When Jimmy Doolittle took command of the North African air force he told Hap Arnold that he did not want any more medium bombers and wanted heavy bombers instead. There was a tug of war for heavy bomber production between the Mediterranean and UK Army air forces.
So, it was Heavier, More expensive, less reliable, more dangerous to fly, and less survivable than the B-25, and was neither faster nor able to carry larger bomb load. Not great stats.
Until 1943, yes.
The great stat is it had the lowest loss rate of any medium bomber in the war.
Thanks for prompting me to look up the B-42. So glad one is preserved at the NMUSAF.
LOL, me too.
😲What in the world...???
Very awesome airplane, and it is called the XB-42 Mixmaster!?!
Dad was a waist gunner in a B-26, he never said anything bad about it. The B-26 did bring him home. He was late war, '44-'45. He did mention the flak and he carried German steel in his body.
I was at home in the UK during the 50th anniversary of D-Day when I heard several aircraft engines and when I looked up there were three B-26 Marauders flying passed. A big but welcome surprise.
I've been asking for more videos on medium bombers. Thanks!
One a day in Tampa Bay. The B26 had Curtiss electric props. The crew chiefs would test cycle the props off the batteries. Later the plane was started by a start cart. During flight when the props were synchronized, the depleted batteries went flat, so did the props and splash. The whole nation was going up the learning curve. Many planes were lost due to screw ups, like using the wrong grade of gas, or maintenance errors, and green crews.
The B26 loaded take off speed was ~150mph and cruise around 200. Not a lot of margin.
The A20 doesnt get much attention but it was potent.
I agree. My uncle Joe. P flew one in New Guinea under General Kenney. 184 missions certified in a form-letter from General Kenney's office.
another in depth informative and interesting video . Thank you.
Thank you for this video. My grandfather flew in B-26 S/N 43-34228 and was killed in a midair crash on a mission in February 1945. Widowmaker indeed.
In his autobiography, (I Could Never be so Lucky Again,) Doolittle describes how, as commander of the 12th Air Force in North Africa, he would visit the B-26 units and give demonstration flights. While in flight, he would shut down one engine, then fly the plane. Then restart that engine and shut down the other. This to inform the pilots that with proper training and confidence they could safely fly the B-26.
Twin engine planes are notorious for 'torque rolling' into the ground on final approach with one engine out. The smaller wing area of the early B-26 made it particularly vulnerable. Add pilots with not so much experience and...
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles did a post "B-26 Unsafe at any Speed" covered the problem with losing an engine on takeoff or landing. Gen. Jimmy Doolittle (greatest aviator in history IMHO) doing a demonstration for new pilots would be like Michael Jordan showing middle school kids how easy it is to dunk a basketball!
Thanks for another in-depth analysis. Excellent video!
Would be great to see a similar comparison in '44 & '45, once they actually figured out how to maintain and utilize the B-26 and lowered its sortie loss ratio to be the best in the USAAF.
This is what I had always understood as well, that ultimately the B26 was the most survivable aircraft in the US inventory. “Flak Bait” in the NASM with 206 missions to its credit would also seem to bear this out.
@@erickleven1712 one of my wife's more distant relatives flew B-26s but didn't survive
Yes! I would like to see the late war, and total war comparisons. I was under the impression that the B-26 did quite well when all was said and done.
Just confirmed it...B-26 had lowest U.S. bomber loss rate of the war at 0.5% per sortie. This video paints an incomplete & misleading picture.
@dgott7726 it's tricky, as you have to look at equivalent missions as much as possible (something brought up in B-17 to B-24 comparisons). The B-25 flew a lot of ground and sea attack missions in the PTO which had a high loss rate. Equally, the B-26 did a fair few low level missions in the ETO, notably on D-Day. Although the B-26 had the lowest final loss rate of any bomber in WW2, selecting a number of missions for each that match is the better metric.
This having been said, the USAAF would also factor in bombs on target - so a 50% higher loss rate per sortie might be acceptable if effects on target were double, for example. Or even twice the loss rate might be accepted as in war time is factor, so being able to take out a target in one raid rather than two a couple of days apart might be worth it.
Gotta love the nicknames for the B-26:
"One a day into Tampa Bay"
and
"The Baltimore Whore" (With the relatively small wings, it had no visible means of support, and Martin was based in... Baltimore.)
Mumble years ago, there was a guy in one of the old Usenet newsgroups who had been a B-26 Bombardier in the ETO until he transitioned to the A-26 right at the end of the war. He had some amazing stories.
@@CecilHabermacher the A-26 had a difficult start as the lateral visibility was poor which made flying in formation less safe than it should have been. Fantastic performance, though.
Dont forget the "flying prostitute"
As always, your research is outstanding!
Interesting that the A-26 was considered a light bomber when it could carry 6000 lbs of bombs.
There's more to the classification than bombload. Total weight, range, crew complement, defensive firepower, etc.
Great video. Thank you for not producing the garbage AI junk that pollutes UA-cam.
Another great video but I have a question. I have read and heard in other reports that the loss rate in combat of B-26's was the lowest of any U.S. aircraft, but the data you showed us does not reflect these statements. I am assuming the data you have given is correct and the other reports are not backed up by the facts, unless there is another explanation.
I got very excited you mentioned the A-26 today. I hope we will be getting a video on the roles and effectiveness of both the A-20 and A-26 soon. I can only assume a Luftwaffe airbase would be very unhappy to be on the receiving end of an interdiction flight by these aircraft but how effective were they in the destruction of the Luftwaffe?
It doesn't reflect the reality because he cherry-picked reports from the earliest portion of the B-26 combat history, in a time period when B-26s were in use against heavily defended strategic targets while B-25 was in use against soft targets and for maritime patrol; then comparing the loss rates as if they are in any way equivalent.
@@bronco5334 Not cherry picked at all. He stated the time period as 1943 and said that another video will cover the late war period.
"Medium bombers are not useful as ground strafers"
B-25 J: "Hold my 18 .50 cals"
The 25 is such a blast to fly, a bomber that truly thinks it’s a fighter. Never flown in a 26 though, it’s on my list.
I thought I had read somewhere, years ago, of a B-25 claiming an air-to-air kill, but not from the usual defensive guns, rather by being flown offensively the way a fighter would be flown. Can't find any reference to it anywhere though.
Saw one at an airshow that started with a simulated carrier launch. What that plane did was crazy.
Two words: Flak Bait. A B-26B Marauder with 202 combat missions and 750 hours in the ETO with zero crew losses. Came back twice on 1 engine and more than 1000 bullet strikes. I'd bet if you did a detailed analysis of Marauder vs. Mitchell missions, the Marauders were assigned the more difficult missions. Flying a heavy bomber at medium altitude in the ETO was a death sentence.
According to my father-in-law, his squadron of B-26s flew a great many low level missions in the ETO after Normandy. Attacking bridges and rail lines to interdict supplies and prevent vehicles from making it to the front. He loved the B-26, but said the low level flying was terrifying.
@@M1903a4he was comparing b17 and b24 vs med 25 and 26
This was a well done video. Great info/numbers.
Just to be picky (I love your channel) ... the 40% cost difference between the aircraft doesn't mean you need a 40% premium on performance. This is because the crews (of 6) are more costly than the aircraft itself. The cost difference probably warrants nearer a 15% or 20% improvement to justify the cost.......
From my understanding, since the B26 was mass produced straight off the drawing board without even prototypes being built there was always going to be serious issues. This was the initial root of the problem with its high loss and accident rates. And as the data provided, much off it was gathered prior to the work that went into sorting the B26 out. The main change being an increased wing span that helped things considerably. If I’m not mistaken, certainly after those changes the loss rate improved and it became a much safer aircraft. As for the bombing accuracy, I can’t recall how that improved as the aircraft should have been more a more stable platform, for a 2 engined medium bomber. Both aircraft were good but I do remember reading pilots recalling the B26 as a hot rod especially when it was lightened without bombs etc. Never heard anything like that about the Mitchell.
Sorry to point out, but you have the pics and names of the Invader and Havoc swapped starting at the 10:27 mark :)
Thanks for the sharp eye, I corrected the image
The combat losses can't be compared directly, because they were often used differently. The B26 was more maneuverable and more rugged. So the B25 was better only when no one was shooting at you.
Another excellent video 🇭🇲👍
I'd love to see a video on the combat record of my favorite WWII combat aircraft - the Douglas DB7/A-20 Boston/Havoc series.
Trivia: The B-26's epithet "Flying Prostitute" was a comment on its original small wings. The B-26 was a huge aircraft, it wasn't that much smaller than a B-17, in fact the fuselage had a lot more girth. Yet it had relatively small wings.
So the joke goes that "ladies of the night" have no job during the daytime, when everyone else works, yet they can always pay their bills on time.... that is, they have no visible means of support.... like the B-26 and its tiny wings.
My father had a choice between the B-24, A-20 and B-25. He chose the B-25. Crews called it "old reliable."
Wow. Really demonstrates the capacity the US had. Interesting how the statistics so closely tracked the aircrews opinions.
Great, gritty study on these two planes. The proportion of armament/crew weight to aircraft weight is so much higher on a US medium bomber that on a heavy bomber. This carries the penalty of either reduced fuel load, or reduced bomb load. Also, over occupied Europe, the flak at the operational altitudes at which these mediums were used, was murderous. At least for the B-25, it's service in the Pacific was exemplary. I was surprised to find out how expensive these planes were, when compared to a 4-engined heavy.
There was a pilot of a B-26 that retired at my hometown and he said the most nervous he was flying it was during the takeoff. It had a relatively fast takeoff speed and if you lost an engine the torque(?) from the one at full power would turn you off the runway. Fully loaded it was almost unsurvivable. I believe he told me B-26 but could have been an A-26.
The single engine take-off safety speed was very, very, critical. You must have a high enough airspeed (and thus, rudder authority) to overcome the tendency of the “working” engine not to pull, or yaw the plane towards the dead engine. The P-38, having engines that rotated outboard, had two “critical” engines; that is, the outboard portion of the down-going blade produced more thrust due to the increased angle of attack (asymmetric disc loading) and being so far out on the wing, the arm was a lot greater, so the single engine safety speed was also quite high for that plane. Every multi-engined aircraft has a vsse, if the airspeed is insufficient, along with a heavy load, pushing on the rudder to the stops will not stop a plane from falling off on a wing. That’s it in a nutshell.
The B26 alsosufferedfrom defective carburetors. The B26 figures are a complete puzzle to me.
Great analysis 👍
Very interesting. How about evaluation o these airplanes in the Pacific theatric.
Agree. Kenny had a different opinion of these aircraft as used in the SW Pacific theatre.
Unfortunately, the aircraft performance tables are illegible because they're too small. Any chance you could post larger images?
The B-25 had the 12-50 cal nose version for strafing in the pacific. Even the 75mm cannon version. Otherwise they were so similar as bombers. Saw docs of B-26 pilots talking about how hard it could be to fly and the high landing to stall speed. It wasn’t a bad plane, but if we should have went with one or the other, the B-25 for the whole war was the way to go…
IMHO Ibelieve the Martin B-26 to actually be a medium bomber while the NA B-25 to be more in the Attack aircraft category.
shouldve built more b-17s.
[9:18] I'd guess Pappy Gunn never got Air Vice Marshall Tanner's memo...
Often wondered how much performance increase the B25 would have had IF it had of gotten the later PW R2800 engine ??? The B25 got the Wright R2600 engine because it was AVAILABLE earlier than the R2800........yet the B25's performance seemed to equal the B26 and was easier to fly !!!
They tried that and at a air display it pulled it's wings off and crashed .
Equally, the B-26 was intended to have much more powerful engines and be about 80mph faster.
Very good, well done.
Love the vid.
Thanks!
Great insights!
All that was use in the ETO, what about in the Pacific? My impression is the B-25 was more heavily used in the pacific, and was more effective compared to heavy bombers (until the B-29 came along), but is that accurate?
It's plausible, simply because there were very few targets suitable for strategic bombing. Island bases were the only useful B-17 and B-24 targets, whereas B-25s and B-26s were great anti-shipping bombers.
Read John Bruning's "Indestructible". The inventors of low level bombing in the SW Pacific theater loved the 25 and hated the 26.
@@nomdeguerre7265 Thanks -- just ordered it.
Why the difference in man-hours to produce & final unit cost to the government between these 2 medium bombers? Was Martin’s B26 a more complex design to build or did North American have a better system for mass production? Possibly the answer is a little of both. Only the USA during WW2 could afford to produce 2 heavy bombers, 2 medium bombers and how many different fighter types.
"not to be confused with the Doulas A 26 Invader" (Wikipedia)
Looking at most aspects, the B-25 was very much an example of ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ it carried a decent ordinance load. The B-26 doesn’t improve much on the B-25 in performance and bomb load
This goes a long ways to explaining why B 25s work well in the Pacific. Much less AA. Far easier to attack a ship than a ground target ringed with AA. Also anti shipping work fit the medium well.
I often see other really interesting things in the tables and data you include and here's today's example:
(0:45) In the table...Medium bombers......B-25, ok....B-26, yeah....Wait, what the heck's a B-42?
I check Wikipedia and there it is....The Douglas Mixmaster.....Two contra-rotating pusher propellers on the extreme rear, behind the tail planes, on a medium bomber, with engines inside the fuselage, and defensive guns folded into the trailing edges of the wings...
Umm, wow. Ok...
This comparison needs to get into the weeds with respect to differences in use. See John Bruning's "Indestructible" as well as other sources. Spaatz, Tedder and Doolittle apparently never met Kenny and Gunn.
How to report favourable ‘evidence’ for a particular slant!, these ‘1943’ reports are obviously from the more lightly engaged, inexperienced and naive pre-war tactics influenced time period up to the end of that _for the USAAF_ early war. The significant air force build up was much later and with crew combat experience and more appropriate advanced training the hotter B-26 turned out to be a great success.
In addition to the continuous accumulation of higher empty weights sapping performance, the medium bombers were also flown at much more dangerous lower altitudes resulting in reduced true air and ground speeds which greatly increased their vulnerability to enemy fighters and anti aircraft artillery. The German fighters were more competitive at those medium altitudes with their less sophisticated engine supercharging.
Am I right in the fact there are no B-26s that survived. All were scrapped after the war?
Kermit Weeks has a B 26 that's airworthy at Fantasy Of Flight. Then there's Flakbait that's been preserved at the Smithsonian, in it's final combat condition, everything that is done to that airframe is done towards preservation not restoration there are still patched up bullet holes from combat that are visible, the paint is still original.
@@Ar1k1 Thanks for that. Great to know. Glad to know the B-26 didn't go the way of USS Enterprise CV-6.
I declare to the Almighty Algorithm that this was a very interesting video. Mahalo for your meticulous research and Aloha!
🥺The Defense Industrial Complex strikes again .
Great & enlightening 😊
Uncle flew B26s and did okay keeping the landing speed up and the nose high on landing. Pilots crashed landing too slow.
Ok well I just cannot make up my mind - I guess I want both of them.
my uncle was killed in Nov of 44, when the B-26 he was in crashed and burned on takeoff. my dad was just 2 months old
Very interesting!
Good show
B-26 got a raw deal in the Pacific.
P.I. Gunn disagreed.
@nomdeguerre7265 both were great planes. Gunn was a genius.
Be interesting to learn about postwar employment of both a/c. I know a few made their way into Latin American service, as well as the CIA.
All valid facts. But that 1:72 Airfix B25 with the 75mm howitzer in the nose ... that was the business. And the B26 model with all the .50 guns on the side of the plane, near the cockpit. Oh boy. Painted in DDay stripes, that was a real nice looking model. The things the Yanks did to their B25's for attacking barges off of New Guinea, that was nasty. And when the invasion started and McArthur said - shoot the swimmers, three days in a row, well, that was total war. Maybe a little pay back too.
Would like to see the B26s launched from the deck of the Hornet in the Doolittle raid! Off the deck and into the ocean!
I'm sure the Japanese victims would attest to the effectiveness of B-25s in a strafing role in the Battle Of The Bismark Sea.
Why did we bother building so many B-26's...or B-24's for that matter?
I can speculate that going into the war the US didn't know what design might work best. Then clear performance data was available on the back half of the war and that generated what we see today. It's more obvious to us now than it was to them early in the war.
IIRC the Senate Truman Committee tried to cancel B-26 production in favor of the B-25
2.15 1945 bomb load 4,000 pounds, assume conventional bombs
Invader video?
Periscope films has some good WWII training films such as this one on Flying the B-26. ua-cam.com/video/tr_JsB2Q3VA/v-deo.html
B26 was by far the better looking aircraft
As a rule of thumb, any plane called "The Widow Maker" should be flown with caution!. The B-26 was singled out by the Truman Committee report as an example of a defective product being delivered to the military due to its high loss and accident rate. Martin knew that making the wing larger would solve a lot of the problems with the B-26 but took no action until pretty much forced to.
Safer but more expensive and reduced performance. They erred a bit on the risk/reward balance when designing for newby pilots.
The Truman Committee was political theatre designed to increase the political profile of one Harry S Truman. The B-26 suffered from being rushed straight from the drawing board into production and then dropped into flight training system that didn't know how to deal with the engine out emergencies. That and faulty maintenance procedures that lead to frequent failures of the Curtis Electric props the B-26 was equipped with. It took alot of work to correct the real problems and its bad reputation but it turned out to be extremely successful when used as it was intended - medium altitude bombing.
I Go into Combat with the B-26, It's Faster.
I'll take the... easier to fly one? 🐿
First 😮