Jump to content

Talk:Martin B-26 Marauder/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Why so few survivors?

With more than double the number of A-26s produced and in comparison to other WWII aircraft can someone add why there are so few B-26 survivors?

I’ve heard that after the war was over, with the A-26 assuming the B-26’s role, they were no longer needed. Rather than incurring the expense of flying them back to the States, they were all flown somewhere in Germany and sold for scrap. ‘Flakbait’ was spared, dismantled, and shipped back for display. Wschart (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

can someone clarify if all of this stuff is fair use or not? Alkivar 06:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To me, I think the more important question is its value. Personally, I think the whole historical evolution of the plane gets the article much too bogged down in the minutiae. A schematic picture (or the skeleton one they also have) would be much better for the article, IMHO. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 23:53, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Reverts by Alkivar

This revert is unjustified. User:153.111.60.15 made a valid and useful addition to this page by mentioning nations which operated the B-26 (a sub-heading supported by WP:AIR). Please refrain from reverting edits without an explanation. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 06:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was reverted as a duplication of content already on there. See the bottom for link to article List of units using the B-26 Marauder during World War II This content was already spun off from the article. And comparitively makes this contribution look worthless... not to mention its uncited, and not entirely correct.  ALKIVAR™ 07:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Please be so kind as to explain such deletions in the future. All I saw was a reverted edit with no explanation. - Emt147 Burninate! 20:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I thought it was obvious... I'll explain non vandalism reverts in the future.  ALKIVAR™ 18:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, This is a first for me, so I'm apologising in advance. But I was disapointed with the lack of historicalbackground or explanation and facts behind the Air Force's continued smear of the Marauder. I don't intend to get too specific, but either you know this already and don't want to even try to clean it up, or are actually ignorant of this background.

The Marauder story should be put in context; the cabal within the USAAC which did anything to promote a seperate service, the arrogant stupidity that caused the trainning deathes were no fault of Martin or the B-26 itself, but the direct result of that hubris.

The first two bomber groups who converted to the B-26 did so without the lethal accidents that occurred after the USAAF most decidedly ruined things , it has since refused to admit it's responsibility, and has yet to do so more than 60 years after the fact.

The time is long past when it should be readily admitted there was a cabal or group within the USAAC, that envied the independent air forces of Europe (who were rather foolish and extravagant with their resources, if not down right inept) and did whatever it could to further anything that might push that egocentric presumption, to the exclusion of any other purpose or mission. The strategic bomber mision being the most autonomous, they proceeded to reduce and or eliminate funding and actual aircraft for all the other missions they were supposed to perform, to the detriment of the national defense, which even today is reverberating.

This deliberate myopia is why the USAAF did not field a single aircraft designed for reconnaissance, or close air support (including dive bombing); even obvious necessities like long range fighters became available in spite of the USAAF, not by intention, when the cabal did it's utmost to ban auxiliary fuel 'drop' tanks, because the 'cabal' saw them as a threat to their precious strategic bomber, rather than being it's salvation. The deliberate purging of any fighter advocates like Claire Chennault from the USAAC is just one indication of thecabal's intent. Rather than covering up such stupid arrogance, it should be taught to everyone, to avoid possible disastrous decisions in the future.

The story of the auxiliary fighter fuel tanks, and the curiously stupid role various then current and future leaders played in the process, is another subject, touched on here only in passing but must be covered in detail for the truth to be known. The P-51 Mustang epic is another example that needs similiar treatment.

Even light or medium bombers were not on the preferred track, and they suffered from the cabal's (I generally refer to them as the bomber mafia; it's very decriptive) hubris.

The day after Pearl Harbor, Hap Arnold (by his own admission, not the smartest man in the room by far) signed an order that all multi-engined trainers be reserved for the "strategic" (four engined bomber) program, despite the fact that an engine failure in a four engined aircraft is far left serious than two engined, then because the B-26 was ahead of it's delivery schedule in deliveries (Martin doing an excellent job), somebody ordered some sent some to the training fields of Florida and put into the hands of pilots who didn'thave a single hour of twin engine time and and then seemed surprised when pilots began crashing them (can you imagine putting pilots into the hottest twin-engined bomber of the day without any multi-engined time at all; if someone put a pilot with no jet experience into an F-14/15/16/18/22/35 etc, we'd call it murder, but no one has yet identified the idiot who came up with reserving the twin-engined trainers, just as no one has been able to find out who in the USAAF Europe ordered the bombline on D-day moved 10,000 yards inland, ruining the whole purpose of using the strategic bombers, and nearly ruining D-day).

"Hap" admitted he tried several times to get the B-26 canceled, and never seemed to understand his staff's explanations as to the real problem (which says a great deal about his relationship with his staff or their quality), for when the twin-engined training for 'medium' bombers was renewed, the accident rate dropped like a stone, as experience from proper training, and better maintenaince eliminated the problems the USAAF had created but has never apologised for.

The excuse of a high wing loading was pathetic; when the B-26B-10's etc had an even higher wing loading after the wing extension was added, besides all the other aircraft with high wing loading including the B-29 (Arnold apparently had a hard time understanding why high wing loadings were a good idea for bomber missions), that made all the arguments advanced by the USAAF pathetic, yes, the R-2800 was brand new; the B-26 was the first equipped with it to see service, and to blame it's teething problems on the Marauder itself is pitiful. The first bomber group in New Guinea managed to keep their even earlier engines running with the most primitive equipment (or the lack of it); flying in combat under appalling conditions; by the way, LBJ was awarded a silver star as an observer in one which had to return to base before reaching it's target Rabaul (none of the crew were awarded medals of course; MacArthur was just buying influence in DC, with a congressman). It's higher operational rate despite it's youth compared to the comparitively ancient B-17 (more than 4 times as old) should have shown all its superiority, but while the marauder's combat record kept it in production, it could not stop the semi official air force smear campaign.

Despite a distinguished history of supplying the USAAC with it's most modern bombers, Martin continued to be punished; the Air Force refusing to buy any future Martin combat aircraft, such as the XB-51 which was quite superior to the Canberra which it made Martin build and then miss used again, because the 'bomber mafia' inside the Air Force (especially AFGHQ) ignored or sabotaged medium bombers, fighters (like the P-39) or observation aircraft in pursuit of their goal of a seperate service.

The Marauders' combat record (loss rate, mission success etc) was far superior to that of the B-17 which was withdrawn from the Pacific forits poor performance, besides an obsolete design concept that cost far too many lives and was only saved from disaster by a chain of serendipitous events that had nothing to do with the bomber mafia's supposed superior experience or wisdom; potentially even the course of the war was in the balance as the bomber mafia threw tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars onto their altar of self-defending unescorted strategic bombers and an independent Air Force.

The lack of success that the allied strategic bombers were having through 1943 clearly indicate that without the advent of longer range fighters (drop tanks, mustangs etc) the bombing of Germany would have continued to fail in 1944; allowing the development and production of the 'wonder weapons' that might have changed the course of the war.

Conceptually, the Marauder compares to the Mosquito, being the fastest medium bomber in its weight class, carrying bombloads that compared with those carried by the "flying Fortress" albeit over shorter distances, but the the B-26 carried a larger percentage of it's intended bombload than the B-17 did operationally is just another little known fact about the B-26.

I truly would like an explanation why this background information isn't part of the article.

I'm sorry this is so long and wandering, but the subject rings my bell.

I'd appreciate help in saving this, and of course editing it,

Thank you

```Reinzi56````

" ... such as the XB-51 which was quite superior to the Canberra which it made Martin build" - one of the requirements the USAF had for the new bomber was a substantial "loiter time", i.e., time over the target, and as the Canberra demonstrated to US officials by Roland Beamont had just made the first ever non-stop un-refulled crossing of the Atlantic by a jet aircraft (breaking a world record in-so doing), the Canberra had already demonstrated it had plenty of "loiter time". In addition, at the demonstration Beamont had thrown the Canberra around in a series of low-level aerobatic manoeuvres and tight turns quite un-typical for a bomber, and which, if tried in the XB-51, would have possibly required the test pilot to have changed his underwear afterwards.
And Glenn L. Martin wasn't "made" to build the Canberra, they were offered the contract in consolation to losing out on the XB-51 and because Martin had already had good relations with the British earlier when they had produced Marylands and Baltimores for the RAF.
BTW, the original Martin name for the Marauder was "Martian".

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

Resolved

maru (talk) contribs 02:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

All references to www.wpafb.af.mil now fail and need to be redefined to www.nationalmuseum.org. Researching new links and reference updates is necessary to meet standards. LanceBarber 18:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any such links. Were they removed? --Colputt 22:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Australian Use?

Australia is listed as one of the countries using the B-26. As far as I know the only unit to operate the Marauder in Australia was the 22nd BG out of the Northern Territory. No RAAF units flew the aircraft http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_units_using_the_B-26_Marauder_during_World_War_II. The main Commonwealth country to use the Marauder operationally was South Africa.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Could be Expanded

I reviewed the B-26 Marauder page today, one which I have not seen in a long time and was disappointed to see that there has been little content added as far as pertinent information about the history and operations of the B-26 bomber, one which has made a name in history with the Allied Forces in World War II. Is there anyone who is willing to help beef up this article and do some serious leg work to help restructure and add content to this article? Comments or concerns are welcomed. -Signaleer (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In its current form, it's less readable and generally less comprehensive than Greg Goebel's article on the type; it has more detail in the minutiae, but in general it seems disjointed, and the article is dominated by the "Accidents" section. The "Bibliography" section is very large, but I get the impression that it's just a list of books about the type, rather than sources the author has consulted (there are 22 books listed for an article that only has a two-paragraph "Design and Development" section and a four-paragraph "Operational History" section). The impression I get is of an aircraft that had an unremarkable development history, that may or may not have been unreliable and/or hard to fly and/or hobbled by politics, and that participated in no notable missions at all and that immediately ceased to exist in May 1945. What missions did it fly? Did anybody famous fly it, James Stewart etc? What explains its low loss rate? Did it continue in operational service after the war? Do any still exist today? Was the accident rate more than that of comparable aircraft? Why does it have such a reputation - Time magazine? Was it based on the Maryland? Etc. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
In addition, this article - which at least reads well, although it doesn't have inline citations - opens by saying that "on four occasions, investigation boards had met to decide if the development and production of the Marauder should continue". Is this true? There's nothing about it in Wikipedia's article. There is mention of Harry Truman and the Truman Committee in the "Accidents" section, but it's not linked to the B-26 (unlike in this article, from the same site). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I've done some clean-up on the article to bring it more inline with WP:AIR/PC standards, includinge demoting the "Accidents" section one level. I also added an {{OR}} tag to that section, as it is quite opinionated, but there is only one cite in the whole section, and it's only on a tangental to the section. Also, I cleaned up alot of redundant linking. One thing that was odd in the article is the miscontruing of USAAF to mean "US Army Air Force" (singular), rather than "Forces", as is correct. Hopefully that error (seems to have been added this year) will not come back. - BillCJ (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised the "Accidents" section has dominated the article, not only in the placement in the article but the fact that the Operational section is merely a footnote. -Signaleer (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"later variants maintained the lowest loss record of any combat aircraft during World War II"

This seems a bit disingenuous to me. Later variants would have been operating in theatres where allied aircraft had near total air superiority, which makes this sort of comparison a bit meaningless. 59.167.49.215 (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC) .5% losses is also the record of P-47s iirc. 10:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastdingo (talk • contribs)

From may 1943 to May 1945, the de Havilland Mosquito suffered a loss rate of .39% and a written off rate of .33%, giving a total of .72% [1]. Flanker235 (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Between 1943 and 1945 total losses of bomber, PRU, and night fighter Mosquitoes to German fighters came to 50 (fifty) aircraft - footnote here at page 166; [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.150 (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Thirsk, Ian, de Havilland Mosquito, An Illustrated History, Volume 2, MBI Publishing Company, 2006

Single engine flight

In 1943 I flew a B-26C on one engine briefly, and then on the other. This was not a standard practice.

"B-26B, the only example in flying condition, is part of the Fantasy of Flight collection in Polk City, Florida." I have been in this aircraft and it is a B and not an A model. I was told that it is no longer flown.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.60.221 (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

users

I don't think the US Army air Force and Air Corps should be listed separately. The Army Air Force included the Air Corps, and people from other corps, such as the Medical Corps who supported the Air Corp. David R. Ingham (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally the USAAC is listed for dates from 1926-41, and the USAAF for 1941-47. The B-28 first entered service in March 1941, 3 months before the USAAF came into being. Thus it really wasn't that significant to the USAAC, and probably not in service in appreciable numbers, so it cshould be removed from the infobox. However, it should remain under the Operators section. - BilCat (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

altitude

"Bombing from medium altitudes of 10,000 to 15,000 feet (3,000 to 4,600 m) and with appropriate fighter escort, the Marauder proved far more successful, ..." Maybe we should add why they bombed at this altitude. Below was a bad idea because 3.7 cm Flak 36 ranged to almost 3,000 m (self-destruct of its grenades was after 3,500 m, thus ignore the theoretical ceiling of the gun). Above was a bad idea a) because of lesser accuracy and greater dispersion of bombing and b) because heavy AAA (8.8 cm) had troubles up to 4,500 m altitude because targets were moving fast (in degree/second). 3,000 to 4,500 m was therefore known to all European WW2 air forces (Allies used similar AAA) as a sweet spot for level bomber attacks. 11:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastdingo (talk • contribs)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached to not merge the articles. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 22:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The article Flak Bait should probably be merged into this article. While the aircraft is notable, the article is a stubbish orphan. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 20:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Seems to be enough info and sources to expand the aricle a bit more. I think we'd lose too much info merging it into the main article. As to being an orphan, that can also be improved. - BilCat (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accidents - explanation of cut

Please note that I cut the sentence stating that Truman's committee had visited Florida where the B-26 crews were training and that two planes had just crashed and were burning. The moderator of the website B26.com said that their panel of B-26 historians/crew members could find no evidence of this: "An example of a B-26 myth is the claim that Senator Harry S. Truman, Chairman of the Special Committee of the Senate to Investigate the National Defense Program (March 1941 to August 1944) visited Avon Park bombing range and found two newly crashed and "smoldering" Marauders. This is from a respected aviation author who does not give a source for his information. Does anyone have any pictures or newspaper articles showing the Senator's, any committee members' or any committee investigators' visit to Avon Park? No reference, pictures or articles have been found at the archives in MacDill and Maxwell USAF Bases, the Truman Library or Tampa Bay Tribune." http://www.b26.com/guestbook/2010.htm (Open questions- 12/13/2010)Gmhopkins (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)gmhopkins

Variants

First edit ever on Wiki so excuse any mistakes please. In the text accompanying File:01097628 007.jpg (the expanded image of the thumbnail "U.S. Army Air Forces B-26B bomber in flight" it is said that the name of this aircraft with reg.nr.41-31669 is "A Kay Pro's Dream". According to data found on the website B36.com the name should be "A Kay Pea's Dream". Sproetje (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

More details needed

I would like to see the following:

  • Was there a hard-nosed variant? (They have guns instead of the bombardier.)
  • List typical crew compliment.

Will (Talk - contribs) 17:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No solid-nosed variants were built - as it ended up being used as a medium level bomber, sunch a version would not have been sensible. The crew compliment is already discussed in the Design and development section.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Better performance ?

In the article there's the sentence "While the B-26 was a fast aircraft with better performance than the contemporary North American B-25 Mitchell,".. which in this or other form I keep reading. However, a quick glance at the technical data of the B-26 and the B-25J made me wonder, where the better performance actually shows? The technical data shows: Max Speed: B-26 287 mph vs. B-25 275 mph Cruise Speed: B-26 216 mph vs. B-25 230 mph Combat radius: B-26 1,150 mi vs. B-25 1,350 mi Ferry range: B-26 2,850 mi vs. B-25 2,700 mi Service ceiling: B-26 21,000 ft vs. B-25 25,000 ft Wing loading: B-26 46.4 lb/ft² (228 kg/m²) vs. B-25 55 lb/ft² (270 kg/m²) Power/mass: B-26 0.10 hp/lb (170 W/kg) vs. B-25 0.110 hp/lb (182 W/kg)

Armament B-26: Guns: 12 × .50 in, Bombs: 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg) Armament B-25: Guns: 12–18 × .50 in, Bombs: 6,000 lb (2,700 kg)

So the B-26 is only slightly faster in max. speed, but about the same amount slower in cruise speed, has a lower service ceiling, less combat radius and less armament, where actually *is* the higher performance ? It also has a worse power/mass ratio. And another interesting question: where *is* the high wing-loading? It seems to be lower than the B-25s ? Snark7 (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Marauder certainly wasn't a 'fast aircraft' as the article claims -- its cruise and maximum were about the same as a Lancaster's, and nothing like a Mosquito's -- and it didn't outperform the B-25 Mitchell, but the Mitchell wasn't that great either. In service with 2 Group RAF the Mitchell had a max speed of 294-304mph (but max speed is pretty academic on bomber operations), a cruise of 180-235mph depending on how much range you needed (remember a Lancaster always cruised at 210mph at full load outbound, as far as 1,000 miles from base, and 240mph home), and a range of 925 miles at 15,000ft with the maximum 4,000lb load -- that is a radius of about 450 miles, and the load was no more than two Typhoon fighters could deliver, though admittedly the B-17 and B-24 were not much better. See Michael J. Bowyer, 2 Group RAF: A Complete History 1936-1945, Faber 1974, Crecy 1992, Appendix 4, p.444. The Marauder had an even smaller load than the Mitchell, but it often carried the Westinghouse T-1 gyro-stabilised computer bombsight, a US licenced copy of the British Mark XIV, so its load was quite likely to be on target. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Used by Turkish Air Force?

Can someone verify this? I am aware of Turkish pilots being trained in USA late 40s, but not sure if the planes actually made it to the TAF inventory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.246.10 (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

...after aerodynamics modifications...

I believe that the grammatical version should be, "...after aerodynamic modifications..." as English, unlike some languages, does not have plural adjectives and the plural noun aerodynamics would not be appropriate here. ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Some confusion about South African squadrons ?

"...South African squadrons (24 and 30) joining No 12 and 24...". How can 24 join 24 ? Rcbutcher (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2018

Grammar change requested, please change 'past' to 'passed'. The quote attributed to comedian George Gobel should be "no Japanese plane got passed Tulsa." Past refers to time, passed refers to movement. Taconnolly (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: "Past" is also a preposition, which is the correct use in this case. It would be correct to say "no Japanese plane passed Tulsa", but that's not the quote. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Spelling error - landigns should be landings

For a time in 1942, pilots in training believed that the B-26 could not be flown on one engine. This was disproved by a number of experienced pilots, including Jimmy Doolittle, who flew demonstration flights at McDill, which featured take offs and landigns with only one engine.

I couldn't correct due to edit lock. Mariner82 (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Anti...

The words "antiaircraft", "antishipping", "antisubmarine", "antitank", "antiballistic missile", "antimatter", "antifascist", "anticommunist", "anticapitalistic", and so forth, are single words, except for one open compound word, WITHOUT any hyphens, dashes, and whatnot.
These words are written in the same way as antidisestablishmentarianism and demisemiquaver, w/o any extraneous punctuation marks at all.47.215.180.7 (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Not always, especially in a military context. - BilCat (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Martin B-26 Marauder to Elizabeth L. Gardner, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_B-26_Marauder/Archive_1&oldid=1206587239"