What did you expect from a plane nicknamed “The Widow Maker” ?
LOL, yeah, it was a realistic nick name. 
They did not design them with pilot safety or comfort in mind. It was to get the job done & then see IF they could maybe get the pilots home. Military thinks like that a lot especially before the planes were several $billion a pop. They did not mind losing a few to get the job done.
Bunch of gutsy kids flying during that time.
It’s been noted before (maybe even earlier in this thread) but with a greater than 50 percent mortality rate for UK Bomber Command aircrew, yeah, I’d say they were gutsy. Just a tad.
I could not have done their job.
I have forgotten the stats mentioned Len Deighton’s novel Bomber.
Aircrew were required to fly some 23 missions or so, and the odds of being killed apparently increased with each one. They were flying Lancasters at night. I believe the British bombed at night, the Americans during the day.
Deighton’s protagonist is dismissed for “lack of moral fibre” and dies in an automobile accident in 1960’s London.
My father was a flight instructor on the B-26 during the war. He loved that plane.
Also, someone mentioned that tail gunners weren’t used on bombers after WWII. As a point of trivia, I know that at least a few US bombers, and probably a few Soviet ones as well, still carried tail gunners for a few decades after. There are two air-to-air kills during the Vietnam War credited to enlisted airmen on B-52s for taking down North Vietnamese interceptors with the Stratofortress’s tail gun.
A picture of the tail gunner’s positionon (I believe) a B-52D on display at the Kansas Aviation Museum. Later models of the B-52 would move the tail gunner into the forward section of the plane with the turret being remote controlled. Still later models removed the gun entirely.
I had a teacher who was a retired B-52 pilot, and he said he wished they had never gotten rid of the tail gunners. Not because they were of any actual use in fighting off enemy interceptors in the age of radar-guided missiles, but because the tail gunner could actually see more of the plane than the pilots could from where he was sitting, and could give handy information such as “We’re trailing smoke from the #5 engine” or “The wing fell off, best of luck guys, I’m gonna just bail out here.”
If he did not start with nerves of steel, he got them right quick.
I was an instructor just long enough to realize that I should let that endorsement lapse.
I bet he had some great or at least very frightening stories… :eek:
Apparently, the trick was to treat it more like a fighter than a bomber.
My parental B-26 story:
Dad hated them.
The B-26s would raid Japanese targets, Japanese fighters would follow the bright gleaming metal B-26s home, see Dad’s green B-25s on the ground and strafe the B-25 base.
So Dad said he hated the B-26s. 
I propose another Internet rule: As the length of a thread about WW2 aviation increases, the probability of the thread becoming epic tends to 1.
So, should we call it Malacandra’s rule ?
Works for me. 
Despite that nickname, which I think came from the difficulty trainees had with the high wing-loading, Wikipedia (and other sources I’ve read) says:
The Marauder ended World War II with the lowest loss rate of any USAAF bomber.[5]
Not sure why that’s true.
Perhaps the Widow Maker killed more guys in training than in combat, or more B-26 trainees died than trainees of other aircraft.
It is like the old line that more ME-109 pilots died in training than did in combat. So, how many 109’s were lost in the War? How do you want to count that? Do we add those shot up on the ground with no pilots in them? Structural failures not due to combat? Test flights of new models? Training accidents?
I have been to several FAA training seminars on light twins.
They always say, “Now, when this happens, here is what you do, except in Alaska”, or they end with “in an Aerostar.”
The Martin B-26 was kind of like that. 
The guys who had trouble with the high stall speed didn’t even make it into combat?
This seems counter-intuitive, can you elaborate?
Perhaps the characters in the novel merely believed that.
Bomber, by Len Deighton.
Even if the odds on any given mission are the same, the more of them you fly, the higher your probability of getting killed during that tour of duty.
Also, the more dangerous missions would be assigned to the more experienced and capable crews, so the odds against you might go up during your tour anyway.
It did indeed come from higher training losses, not its combat performance. The B-26 was a very ‘hot’ aircraft and required a high landing speed to avoid stalling. With the rapid a dramatic expansion of the USAAF the average quality of trainees had to drop, and losses in training was where all of the unflattering nicknames and expressions came from (among my favorites are ‘one a day in Tampa Bay’, ‘Martin Murderer’ and ‘Flying Prostitute’). In the hands of skilled pilots much better performance could be attained in the B-26 than the much more user friendly B-25 though, hence the low combat loss rates. It was extremely fast for a bomber. No cite since I can’t remember where I read it, but a B-26 pilot in the Pacific said something to the effect of the difference between the B-25 and the B-26 was most notable when they were jumped by Zeros on CAP; the B-25s would take losses while the B-26s were able to accelerate out of trouble.
Hmm, might have been in the WITPAE forum, I’ll look and see if I can find it. B-26’s were eventually pulled from the Pacific and used exclusively in the ETO.