Fast Bombers - use the Heavy Fighter base?

[Carl_Brisgamer]

I have been fielding unofficial aircraft for WGS from the very first game I played three years ago, and recently I have been considering what base would be most suitable for the 'fast' bombers that saw service throughout WW2. A number of these aircraft were also used as heavy fighters and are often described as manouverable, 'fully-aerobatic' or agile, as opposed to their generally larger lumbering cousins.

Given these circumstances I have identified the following 'bombers' could use the 'heavy fighter' base, 86mm x 67mm:

Bloch MB.174/175
Breguet 693
Bristol Blenheim Mk.I
Bristol Blenheim Mk.IV
De Havilland Mosquito
Dornier Do 17
Douglas A-20 (Boston)
Glenn Martin 167F (Maryland)
Junkers Ju 88A
Kawasaki Ki-48 'Lily'
Lockheed Hudson Mk.I(IV)
Martin B-26 Marauder
Petlyakov Pe-2

This is by no means a definitive list. I would invite other members to nominate further aircraft types to add to this list.

Cheers,

Carl.

[Zoe Brain]

A good dividing line would be - was this aircraft ever used as a fighter?

I'd put the B-26 out, I don't see it as any better than a B-25 when it comes to maneuverability. Worse, if anything.
DO-17 is iffy, though the larger 215 was a bit more nippy, it was still classed as a heavy bomber airframe, the nightfighters only being suitable for use vs 4-engined bombers.

Ju-88 was fast, but not that maneuverable, not in the same league as a 110 or Mossie.

Pe2 was originally a heavy fighter - definitely. Same with the Blenheims and Mossie. The A-20 had a number of successful nightfighter versions. The 167F was used as a fighter - but only against Ju52s and the like. Iffy. Again I don't see the Hudson or Ki-48 being any better than a B-25 in air combat.

Bloch 170 series were at least as maneuverable as 110s. Bregeuet 693 should in theory have been as good, but its combat record against fighters was poor.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Thanks for the response Zoe.

Do you think there is a place to pay regard to an aircraft's size and profile when considering base size? One reason I added the Do 17 was the type's remarked manoeuvrablity at low altitude, and the thin 'flying pencil' fuselage made it a difficult target. The Glenn Martin 167F had a similarly small profile.

The Lockheed Hudson version I was considering was the up-engined Mk.I(IV). Japanese ace Saboru Sakai mentions the manouverability of the Hudson in his book 'Samurai', and there are other reports of the Hudson's responsiveness.

I take your point on the Ju 88A, a very different aircraft to the Ju 88C, same with the B-26 and Ki-48.

Thanks again,

Carl.