# A-20 vs. Beaufighter



## tomo pauk (Nov 21, 2009)

What would you pick for your airforce of WW2?


----------



## Juha (Nov 21, 2009)

As night fighter and anti-shipping a/c: Beau
As light bomber: A-20

Juha


----------



## renrich (Nov 21, 2009)

I go with Juha!


----------



## drgondog (Nov 21, 2009)

If I had to pick just one and try to adapt to the most missions it would be Beaufighter. There were several US aircraft that would replace the 'light' bomber mission with nearly the same speed but a lot more capabilty.


----------



## davebender (Nov 21, 2009)

In my opinion the A-20 ties with the Ju-88A for best light bomber during the early WWII period.

Apparently my opinion doesn't count for much as the U.S.Army Air Corps did not like the A-20.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 21, 2009)

davebender said:


> In my opinion the A-20 ties with the Ju-88A for best light bomber during the early WWII period.
> 
> Apparently my opinion doesn't count for much as the U.S.Army Air Corps did not like the A-20.



Dave - I wouldn't say they didn't like it - they just felt the B-25 was a better 'buy' for a variety of missions and the A-26 was far superior as you know (and referenced earlier).. 

The Ju 88 was a better match load and range wise for the B-25 than A-20 wasn't it?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 21, 2009)

IMO the A-20 never really got the full credit she deserved.


----------



## glennasher (Nov 21, 2009)

I think the USAF DID like the A-20, after all, after the war, it was renamed the A-26(or B-26) and soldiered on thru Korea, Vietnam, some African campaigns, etc. You can't say that about the Beau, the Mitchell, or the Marauder, can you?


----------



## pinsog (Nov 21, 2009)

A20 Havoc was a completely different aircraft than the A26 Invader.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 21, 2009)

davebender said:


> Apparently my opinion doesn't count for much as the U.S.Army Air Corps did not like the A-20.



The Russians loved the A20.

And the A20 performed with distinction in the SW Pacific with the 5th AF right up to the very end of the war.


----------



## davebender (Nov 21, 2009)

The A-20 was very fast for an early war light bomber and it had a decent size bomb bay (4 x 500 lb bombs). I expect it was difficult to intercept.

When used as a torpedo bomber the A-20 could carry a pair of 45cm aerial torpedoes. Russia made use of this capabilty. The U.S. should have rather then trying to sink Japanese ships with B-17 and B-25 level bombers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 21, 2009)

davebender said:


> as the U.S.Army Air Corps did not like the A-20.



Where did you come up with that?


----------



## Milosh (Nov 21, 2009)

I posted some high quality drawings of the A-20 here,
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/schematics/havoc-drawings-20461.html


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 22, 2009)

davebender said:


> The A-20 was very fast for an early war light bomber and it had a decent size bomb bay (4 x 500 lb bombs). I expect it was difficult to intercept.
> 
> When used as a torpedo bomber the A-20 could carry a pair of 45cm aerial torpedoes. Russia made use of this capabilty. The U.S. should have rather then trying to sink Japanese ships with B-17 and B-25 level bombers.



The B-17 was a failure against shiips but I always thought the B-25 did fairly well skip bombing

Most early B-25s were fitted to carry a torpedo.
The Early B-25s had a much longer range than the A-20, being able to reach the target area might be of some importance. Distances in the pacific being somewhat longer than in the blatic or Black seas.


----------



## Watanbe (Nov 22, 2009)

Wouldn't the Beaufort and the A-20 be a better comparison.

As for anti-shipping, I think the Beaufighter takes the cake.


----------



## renrich (Nov 22, 2009)

The A20G, according to "Aircraft of World War II" by Munson had a Vmax of 317 mph at 10000 feet, a service ceiling of 25000 feet and a normal range of 1025 miles. It carried either nine 50 cal mgs or five 50s and four 20mm cannon: up yo 2000 pounds of bombs internally and a further 2000 pounds externally. Pretty potent warplane.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 22, 2009)

I was curious if the A-20s were ever used in skip bombing which they apparently were, however they were escorted by RAAF Beaufighters for flak suppression - which I kind found humorous.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 22, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I was curious if the A-20s were ever used in skip bombing which they apparently were, however they were escorted by RAAF Beaufighters for flak suppression - which I kind found humorous.



The A20's at the "Battle of the Bismark Sea" in March 1943 had the Beaufighters go in as the lead to "hose down" the ships so the A20's could concentrate on skip bombing their targets. It worked very well. Not only were the AA gunners eliminated but scores of crewman and soldiers were also wounded and killed. Ina couple of cases, the Beaufighter pilots shredded the bridge's and wiped out the ships officers on the spot.

Not all A20 missions were escorted though. The A20's also had the parafrag missions against Japanese airfields in which the A20 was clearly superior. In that case, bomb bay volumetric capacity was paramount as the bombs were light, but you needed to carry dozens of them.

For me, the A20 was the better of the two, simply because it was better as a strictly light bomber. The bomb bay size as being the rationale of why it was the best.

But no mistaking about it, the Beaufighter was a great plane in its role in the SW Pacific. Sort of like a heavy fighter used for antishipping uses.


----------



## JoeB (Nov 22, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> The B-17 was a failure against shiips but I always thought the B-25 did fairly well skip bombing
> 
> Most early B-25s were fitted to carry a torpedo.
> The Early B-25s had a much longer range than the A-20, being able to reach the target area might be of some importance. Distances in the pacific being somewhat longer than in the blatic or Black seas.


B-17's also had some success with skip bombing tactics from late '42, but were basically less suited to it, B-26
s also. USAAF B-25's OTOH sank a lot more ships w/ strafing/skip bombing than Soviet A-20's did with torpedoes (or bombs, Soviet A-20's also employed mast head bombing tactics against ships, as did most countries, though without the heavy fwd firing strafing armament of stafe/skip type B-25's, only some Soviet A-20 units were equipped with torpedoes). USAAF A-20's also had strafe/skip bomb successes as at the Battle of Bismark Sea but that was also B-25's and later on B-25's did an even higher % of the antishipping work, while both types were used for low level anti-airfield attacks, then later A-20's mostly did ground support as in the Philippines. But without bogging down in comparing Soviet and USAAF antishipping effectivness since it's different air arms and different opposition, the USAAF itself after early 1943 had no more reason to seek out different anti-shipping tactics. Strafing/skip bombing had proved highly effective, spectacularly at Bismark Sea (few other convoys in WWII were virtually wiped out like that so rapidly by planes alone), against the type of ships and shipboard AA threat they were called on to attack.

I agree on range of B-25. USAAF A-20 pilots typically liked it as a great pilot's airplane but from a higher level POV it had a lot of the same logistical footprint as a B-25 to support at a forward base but couldn't go as far, carry as much, and was limited in some missions because of single pilot. It had a much higher accident rate too, perhaps for the same reason. But then again that was also a reason pilots liked the A-20, to be left alone to fly and not have to deal with a co-pilot.

A-20 and Beaufighter is comparing two fairly different planes. As a night figher the Beaufighter was superior, the P-70 (A-20 night fighter) didn't have sufficent performance, though a few successes. The Beaufighter OTOH wasn't a real light bomber, the A-20 was. For daylight long range fighter ops the Beaufighter had some success but like most of the mutli crew/multi engine fighters only if it was beyond the range of high quality single engine fighters.

Joe


----------



## davebender (Nov 22, 2009)

I agree. However I don't think either aircraft was too spectacular as a night fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 22, 2009)

JoeB said:


> A-20 and Beaufighter is comparing two fairly different planes. As a night figher the Beaufighter was superior, the P-70 (A-20 night fighter) didn't have sufficent performance, though a few successes. The Beaufighter OTOH wasn't a real light bomber, the A-20 was. For daylight long range fighter ops the Beaufighter had some success but like most of the mutli crew/multi engine fighters only if it was beyond the range of high quality single engine fighters.
> 
> Joe




That sums it up right there....


----------



## Watanbe (Nov 24, 2009)

davebender said:


> I agree. However I don't think either aircraft was too spectacular as a night fighter.



No early war NF was particularly successful, but the Beaufighter was the best of the lot. As far as early war NF's went the Beaufighter was pretty good.


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 24, 2009)

A Beaufighter with rockets could ruin anyones quiet and relaxing afternoon, can't remember ever see the A-20 carry any rockets....


----------



## davebender (Nov 24, 2009)

> Beaufighter with rockets could ruin anyones quiet and relaxing afternoon


Rockets will scratch the paint of an armored warship or a bunker made of reinforced concrete. You need the 4 x 500 lb bombs or 2 x 18" aerial torpedoes carried by the A-20.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 24, 2009)

Rockets can sure beat up on anything less than a cruiser. 

And even on a cruiser having holes blown in the stacks (lessening draft), AA guns knocked out, search lights, radars, gun directors and other topside equipment (deck torpedo tubes anyone?) suffer rocket hits just might qualify as ruining anyones quiet and relaxing afternoon


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 24, 2009)

davebender said:


> ..... or 2 x 18" aerial torpedoes carried by the A-20.



I dont think the A20 ever carried torpedo's into battle. It had the capability, but that doesnt mean it was used operationally.


----------



## Watanbe (Nov 24, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> I dont think the A20 ever carried torpedo's into battle. It had the capability, but that doesnt mean it was used operationally.



The Beaufighter carried/had the capability to carry torpedo's didn't it?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 24, 2009)

Watanbe said:


> The Beaufighter carried/had the capability to carry torpedo's didn't it?



I dont recall the light and medium bomber units in the SW Pacific carrying torpedo's. Once skip bombing was shown to be superior, there wasnt much reason to carry them.

Most anti-shipping missions in that part of the world were search type missions where the most likely type of ship to be found were small coastal luggers and barges. In which 500 pound bombs (and lots of forward firing cannons and .50's) were more than adequate for the task at hand.


----------



## davebender (Nov 24, 2009)

Soviet A-20s carried aerial torpedoes.

Prior to 1944 the USN had defective torpedoes. So if given a choice you carry bombs.


----------



## Wildcat (Nov 25, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> I dont recall the light and medium bomber units in the SW Pacific carrying torpedo's. Once skip bombing was shown to be superior, there wasnt much reason to carry them.
> 
> Most anti-shipping missions in that part of the world were search type missions where the most likely type of ship to be found were small coastal luggers and barges. In which 500 pound bombs (and lots of forward firing cannons and .50's) were more than adequate for the task at hand.



The only Allied light/medium torpedo bomber units in the Pacific that I can think of is the RAAF Beaufort squadrons. They flew torpedo missions up till early '44 as part of the onslaught aganist Rabaul in Oct 43- Jan 44 campaign. I know USAAF B-26's conducted torpedo trials in Australia, but I'm unsure if the 22BG flew any operationally.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 25, 2009)

davebender said:


> Soviet A-20s carried aerial torpedoes.
> 
> Prior to 1944 the USN had defective torpedoes. So if given a choice you carry bombs.



Defective sub torpedo's. The aerial torpedo's werent exactly great weapons but usually worked.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 25, 2009)

Wildcat said:


> The only Allied light/medium torpedo bomber units in the Pacific that I can think of is the RAAF Beaufort squadrons. They flew torpedo missions up till early '44 as part of the onslaught aganist Rabaul in Oct 43- Jan 44 campaign. I know USAAF B-26's conducted torpedo trials in Australia, but I'm unsure if the 22BG flew any operationally.



Its quite possible Beaufighters were equipped with torpedos in that time frame. But it had to be on only a few missions where they expected Japanese ships to be around.

I know the 22nd had a few missions where they did equip with torpedo's (outside of Midway) but as far as I know, they didnt hit anything.


----------



## Wildcat (Nov 25, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Its quite possible Beaufighters were equipped with torpedos in that time frame. But it had to be on only a few missions where they expected Japanese ships to be around.



RAAF Beaufighters in the Pacific never equipped with torpedoes, in fact the only other RAAF aircraft that flew torpedo strikes were Catalina's on two occasions.


----------



## davebender (Nov 25, 2009)

What makes you think that? It appears to me that 69% of USN aerial torpedoes malfunctioned under normal combat conditions two years after the U.S. entered the war. As bad as performance for the Mk-14 submarine torpedo.

*USN Mk 13 Aerial Torpedo*
USA Torpedoes of World War II


> In mid-1943, an analysis of 105 torpedoes dropped at speeds in excess of 150 knots found that 36 percent ran cold (did not start), 20 percent sank, 20 percent had poor deflection performance, 18 percent gave unsatisfactory depth performance, 2 percent ran on the surface and only 31 percent gave a satisfactory run. The total exceeds 100 percent as many torpedoes had more than one defect.


----------



## renrich (Nov 25, 2009)

B26s carried and dropped torpedoes at Midway but got no hits. I don't whether the aerial torps suffered with the same maladies as the larger ones but they were slow and had to be dropped low and slow and were not very effective. I wonder if the torps carried by the B26s were carried internally or externally.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 25, 2009)

Both the B-25 and B-26 wered equiped to carry torpedoes in the early models. Given the launch restrictions on the early MK 13 torpedo the A-20 wouldn't have offered any advantage as a launch platform except a bit smaller target. A-20s shorter range has already been mentioned.
Training squadrons to do torpedo attacks might be another thing.


----------



## davebender (Nov 25, 2009)

> Given the launch restrictions on the early MK 13 torpedo the A-20 wouldn't have offered any advantage as a launch platform except a bit smaller target.



Nothing prevents the USN from putting competent leaders in charge of torpedo development. We built the Merlin engine under license and used it to power American aircraft. Why not build the British 18" Mk XII aerial torpedo under license?


----------



## JoeB (Nov 25, 2009)

renrich said:


> B26s carried and dropped torpedoes at Midway but got no hits. I don't whether the aerial torps suffered with the same maladies as the larger ones but they were slow and had to be dropped low and slow and were not very effective. I wonder if the torps carried by the B26s were carried internally or externally.


They also flew a few missions with them later in 1942 in the Aleutians, again without definite success. Then, B-26's in the Aleutians obtained at least one significant sinking with skip bombing.

There was nothing basically wrong with the Mark 13, but it had the same kind of flaws as the other major US torpedo models of the 1930's (Mark 14 sub, Mark 15 DD). Not the same exact flaws, but same pattern of relatively minor issues that hadn't been debugged properly, because of lack of sufficiently realistic testing and general dysfunctionality of the Torpedo Station at Newport, the main design agent. While realtively easy to overcome once isolated, these flaws caused a lot of failures in the meantime. And the Mark 13 originally had quite restrictive launch criteria in height and speed, often naturally exceeded in combat operations. The re-engineered versions had much wider launch envelope, and again this didn't involve a fundamental re-design, just detail work on various components, plus the ring tail and break-away plywood head. In Mark 13's case the rework was done by Cal Tech. It's true the improved torpedoes were only issued in 1944, when they proved reliable and had as wide or wider speed/altitude envelope as anybody else's aerial torps.

But again, the USAAF wasn't mainly looking to launch torpedoes and foiled by the Mark 13. They were looking for an alternative to medium altitude bombing of ships which the USAAF *gradually* agknowledged was not getting a lot of hits*. Skip bombing was one idea and it proved spectacularly successful, no reason to look back at that point. It was not just against '500 ton luggers. Skip bombing was deadly v. full size (in those days several 1,000 ton) merchant ships, escorts, and DD's and severly damaged cruisers in a few cases too.

*in air-air case we still sometimes only have one side's account so it's still often quoted. Whereas actual sinkings of Japanese warships and large merchant ships, were mainly (with some later corrections) catalogued by the late '40's. But in say 1942, the USAAF was still going partly on its own claims of far greater numbers of Japanese ships sunk, eg. sinkings by B-17's at Midway which didn't occur; but was gradually realizing the hit rate was too low.






B-26 in the Aleutians w/ underslung Mark 13

Joe


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 25, 2009)

Ive never seen that pic before.

Thanks!


----------



## davebender (Nov 25, 2009)

> general dysfunctionality of the Torpedo Station at Newport


Unfortunately they remained disfunctional well into 1943. I guess when the Pacific Fleet commander was judged incompetent nobody had time to worry about small commands like the torpedo station. 

Anyway....
Russian service shows the A-20 was a fine torpedo bomber when equipped with proper aerial torpedoes.


----------



## Waynos (Nov 25, 2009)

The wingspan on that B-26 looks a bit on the short side. Is it an illusion or did some, or early, models have shorter spans?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 25, 2009)

Waynos said:


> The wingspan on that B-26 looks a bit on the short side. Is it an illusion or did some, or early, models have shorter spans?



It might be a bit illusionary. But remember, the B26's *DID* have short wing spans.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 25, 2009)

Waynos said:


> The wingspan on that B-26 looks a bit on the short side. Is it an illusion or did some, or early, models have shorter spans?



Another way to describe this is that the wingspan was increased for the later models.. yes indeed the wings were increased in span for better low speed handling..

WS increased in B26B-10 and all B-26C's


----------



## davparlr (Nov 25, 2009)

Beaufighter vs.A-20

These aircraft are similar but with different missions. The Beaufighter was built as a fighter and the A-20 as an attack aircraft. Flexibility of these designs allowed many mission profiles. A simple comparison of approx. 1940 versions. Please excuse any errors on the Beaufighter, I have little Brit resources, and there were many configurations.

Empty Weight (lbs)
Beaufighter IF 14,900 
A-20B	14,830

Max TO Weight (lbs)
IF 20,800 
A-20B 23,800

Power (hp)
IF two 1635 hp Bristol VI
A-20B two 1600 hp Wright R-2600 

Speed SL (mph)
IF N/A
A-20B 315

Max Speed (mph)
IF 330 mph
A-20B 350 mph 

Range (miles)
IF 1500 (load unknown)
A-20B 835 w/1000lbs bombs

Ceiling (ft)
IF 28,900 
A-20B 28.600

Comparing this to contemporary opponents shows that these could, indeed be formidable weapons.

Airspeed SL (mph)
A6M2 Zero 260 
Bf-109E 290	

Airspeed Max
A6M2 330
Bf-109E 357

The A-20B/C could outdistance a Zero and a Bf-109E at low altitudes and apparently outdistance a Zero at all altitudes, and be a pain for a Bf-109E to catch at any altitude, very impressive for an attack plane. 

It seems to me that, for a 1940 aircraft, the A-20 was fast, powerful, handled very good, and was highly adaptable, a good plane to have on one’s side. I am sure the same thing can be said for the Beaufighter.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 25, 2009)

for true A-20B it's a early 42 plane and beaufighter I it's a early 41 plane


----------



## renrich (Nov 25, 2009)

Dav, good points!


----------



## JoeB (Nov 25, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Another way to describe this is that the wingspan was increased for the later models.. yes indeed the wings were increased in span for better low speed handling..
> 
> WS increased in B26B-10 and all B-26C's


Indeed. The plane in the photo, as can be seen zooming in on the tail, is 40-1373, the 13th production B-26[no suffix], probably taken at Adak, probably 73rd BS a/c. The difficult handling characteristics of early B-26's and Aleutian weather were a very challenging combination.

The first torpedo ops by B-26's in the Aleutians were at the time of Midway, like those of the 22nd BG flying from Midway. At Cold Bay on the Alaskan mainland, B-26's of the 73rd BS were fitted with torpedoes from the seaplane tender Casco, which was supporting PBY's in the area. It was a locally improvised idea. Two of the a/c attacked the Japanese carrier force, centered around Ryujo and Junyo, off Dutch Harbor. One was damaged by a two-plane CAP section of Ryujo Zeroes and forced into cloud (claimed destroyed, unconfirmed), the other dropped the torpedo like a bomb at close range on Ryujo but it landed long on the far side of the ship. That second B-26 flew a second sortie with bombs but disappeared in bad weather.

In the fall, the B-26's briefly tried torpedo attacks again, against Borneo Maru, October 12, 1942. The transport, hit in a previous bombing, was in a shallow cove at Kiska. The water was probably too shallow for torpedoes to be effective and 6 were expended without result, some of which appeared to run properly. Although the photo is dated in November, that raid was apparently the last torpedo strike by B-26's.

Six B-26's of the 73rd sank the DD Oboro and seriously damaged Hatsuharu October 16 as the pair attempted the run to Kiska, losing one B-26 to AA, damaged Cheribon Maru Nov 26, and sank Kachosan Maru Nov 27, 1942, all with low level bombing. Like the 22nd BG in Southwest Pac, the 73rd and 77th BS in the Aleutians were converting to B-25's by the turn of '42-43.

Joe


----------



## davparlr (Nov 25, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> for true A-20B it's a early 42 plane and beaufighter I it's a early 41 plane



You are right about the B, however the A was delivered in Dec. 1940 with almost identical performance as the B. The B/C would have certainly been available against the Japanese. By the beginning of 1941, the Bf-109F was becoming available, with better speed but I think at low altitude it would still have difficulty catching the A-20.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 26, 2009)

Very different aircraft, serving somewhat similar roles 

The Beaufighter was developed under a specification for a long-range, cannon armed fighter. It then evolved into a night-fighter, fighter bomber, anti-shipping strike fighter, torpedo bomber and even a long-range daylight escort fighter, on occasion. 

The A-20 on the other hand was developed as a dedicated light bomber/attack bomber, that was later developed into a torpedo bomber and night fighter. 

it has an internal bomb bay and can conduct level bombing. The Beaufighter can’t do that.


If I was forced to choose one aircraft from European perspective, I’d choose the Beaufighter. While the A-20 can actually perform more mission types than the Beaufighter, I’d rate the Beaufighter better in those roles where it and the A-20 go head-to-head.

Its clearly the better night fighter, and I’d give it the edge as an anti-shipping strike fighter and torpedo bomber. I’d rate the two as about even as daylight fighter/bombers, maybe the Beaufighter was a shade better in terms of speed and climb when loaded.

From the US perspective, where they don’t really have to worry about defensive roles, the A-20 is probably more suitable. The A-20s ace in the hole is the fact that it has an internal bomb-bay and can be fitted with a glass nose to act as a classic light bomber. 

So, with the A-20, you get more bang for you buck in terms of roles per design. You can throw level bomber, night bomber and night intruder into the mix as well.


----------



## merlin (Nov 26, 2009)

There's another way of looking at the question - how much worse of would you be if you didn't have one aircraft or the other one?

In that case the RAF would be much worse off, if no Beaufighters, it would be awhile before Mosquitoes came to be night-fighters - Bostons wouldn't do

If the French hadn't ordered any, for the RAF to take-over, would the RAF have gone for the A-20 Boston, the B-25 Mitchell or the Lockheed Ventura - as a Blenheim replacement?

As a light-bomber and intruder the Boston was a welcome addition to the RAF's inventory, but not I think critical. Whilst the Beaufighter made more of a difference, whether in the night skies over London, in the North Sea Med. attacking Axis shipping, or in the Far East.

Also according to Owen Thetford - the aircraft with 1,200 hp engines max speed 295 mph, and Boston (Mks III - V) with 1,600 h.p. engines max speed 304 mph.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 26, 2009)

French were very much satisfied by the performance by their US-built bombers (M-167 and DB-7); the losses were particularly low. 

Too bad RAF didn't had something equally performing while trying to destroy Belgian bridges. Instead, the obsolete Battles were sacryficed to no avail


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 26, 2009)

And about the P-70 (A-20 night fighter): what is/are the principal causes for less-then-stellar performance?


----------



## Glider (Nov 26, 2009)

merlin said:


> There's another way of looking at the question - how much worse of would you be if you didn't have one aircraft or the other one?
> 
> In that case the RAF would be much worse off, if no Beaufighters, it would be awhile before Mosquitoes came to be night-fighters - Bostons wouldn't do
> 
> ...



I wold suggest that both of these aircraft were critical for the RAF. The Blenhiem units of No 2 Group were getting almost slaughtered in their attacks and the Boston was the perfect replacement. The Ventura was not a success and the B25 not available in numbers. If I had to pick a different replacement for the Blenhiem I would go for the Baltimore.

Beaufighters were the first effective night fighters for the RAF and very good long ranged fighters (as long as they stayed away from single engined fighters) as proven in the Med and the battles over the Bay of Biscay.

The Boston wasn't a nightfighter and the Beaufighter wasn't a strike aircraft in those early years. The RAF needed them both.


----------



## davebender (Nov 27, 2009)

> The A-20B/C could outdistance a Zero and a Bf-109E at low altitudes and apparently outdistance a Zero at all altitudes, and be a pain for a Bf-109E to catch at any altitude


The A-20 was fast enough at normal attack altitude that it could penetrate enemy airspace without a fighter escort and survive. If it had been capable of dive bombing (to improve accuracy) it would have been just about perfect for a WWII era light bomber.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 28, 2009)

merlin said:


> There's another way of looking at the question - how much worse of would you be if you didn't have one aircraft or the other one?
> 
> In that case the RAF would be much worse off, if no Beaufighters, it would be awhile before Mosquitoes came to be night-fighters - Bostons wouldn't do



Havoc I and IIs flew nightfighter missions for the RAF until replaced by Mosquitos, as was the Beaufighter. I don't know how successful they were but it is obvious that they were not failures. Indeed, the AAF was inspired by their performance an kicked off the P-70.

The P-70 never flew combat missions against the Axis in Europe, and in the Pacific, the P-70 had a difficult time against the Japanese, who flew bombing missions at 25,000 ft., a problem the Beaufighter would probably also have had considering the ceiling of the P-70 and Beaufighter were very similar.



> Also according to Owen Thetford - the aircraft with 1,200 hp engines max speed 295 mph, and Boston (Mks III - V) with 1,600 h.p. engines max speed 304 mph.



I do not know where this data comes from. My source, "American Combat Planes", by Wagner shows the top speed of the A-20C (Mark III) as 342 mph and the A-20H (Mark V) (which had 1700 hp engines and was much heavier) as 333 mph. Also, I could not find a reference that showed any version of the Beaufighter having less than 1600 hp engines. Looks like apples to oranges comparison to me. Can you provide more info?

I am kind of surprised the Navy did not look at using the A-20 aboard carriers. It was no heavier than the post war F7F and only 7’ more wingspan than an Avenger. I know carrier qual would have added weight, but the A-10 had lots of potential, and could have provided a big punch to carrier aviation. The Navy pursued this concept aggressively at the end of the war and later.


----------



## davebender (Nov 28, 2009)

A-20 French Boston Aircraft Douglas Model Havoc Engines Nose


> Wing loading 51.7 lb/ft²



A pretty high wing loading. I suspect the stall speed was too high for CV operations.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 29, 2009)

davebender said:


> A-20 French Boston Aircraft Douglas Model Havoc Engines Nose
> 
> 
> A pretty high wing loading. I suspect the stall speed was too high for CV operations.



The number quoted was for Max T/O weight. A comparison at Gross weight is as follows:

A-20C (DB-7B) gross weight 19750 lbs, wing area 464 sqft.
Wing loading 42.5 lb/sqft

F7F-1 gross weight 21,435 lbs, wing area 455 sqft.
Wing loading 47.1

At max T/O weight
A-20C 51.7 lbs/sqft
F7F 49.6 lbs/sqft

So, apparently this kind of wing loading was not a problem in 1945. I suspect it would have only taken pilot familiarity to not be a problem in ‘41. The A-20 had lots of tradeoffs that could be made in fuel and weapons. Having a 340+ mph torpedo/skip bomber at Midway might have made a difference in effectiveness and losses. Remember, the zero could only do about 330 mph and could not turn very well at this airspeed where the A-20 was noted for maneuverability, and, at SL, the A-20 had a* 55 mph speed advantage *over the Zero. However, the A-20 would not be able to be stowed below deck due to height and tight fit on the elevators, a deal breaker. So, I guess I answered my own question.

Now if the AAF had practiced A-20 low level attacks against shipping before the war and developed torpedo and skip bombing tactics and if they had such forces on Midway instead of B-17s, they may have devastated the Japanese, oh, and if the torpedoes worked. If, if, if. The Army wanted to buy B-17s, not A-20s, so the anti-shipping practice was at high altitude and with B-17s, a flawed tactic.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 29, 2009)

I believe the F7F was intended for the Midway class carriers. 

I could be wrong on this. Landing 15,000lb aircraft on early carriers might have been a bit difficult. Didn't some of these ships have wooden flight decks?
the arrestor wire system might have been a little over stressed also.


----------



## davebender (Nov 29, 2009)

> 15,000lb aircraft on early carriers might have been a bit difficult.


I suspect the same thing for the Lexington and Yorktown class CVs. Everything from arrestor cables to aircraft elevators would need to be beefed up. Don't get me wrong. I like the concept of making a CV variant of the A-20. But I doubt it woud be operational in 1942 when it's needed most. 

A land based maritime attack variant would be an entirely different matter. Historically these strike aircraft were located on Midway Island during June 1942:
6 x TBF
4 x B-26
17 x B-17
27 x SBD
17 x SB2U
-----------------
71 strike aircraft total.

Replace this hodgepodge with a strike wing composed of 71 x A-20s flown by pilots who are all trained in maritime attack. Half of the aircraft will carry an aerial torpedo under each wing. The other half will carry a 1,000 lb AP bomb under each wing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 29, 2009)

Don't the B-17 perform a dual role of strike and reconassance?

The A-20s rather limited range is going to limit their usefulness in the Pacific. 

Just when did A-20s start carring under wing loads?

And when did they change from a pair of 500lb racks to a single 1000+ rack under each wing?

What is the range with this amount of under wing ordnance?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 29, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe the F7F was intended for the Midway class carriers.



Correct.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 29, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Don't the B-17 perform a dual role of strike and reconassance?



Yes



> The A-20s rather limited range is going to limit their usefulness in the Pacific.



But it didnt. In fact, it became legendary in its low level bombing role.



> Just when did A-20s start carring under wing loads?



Since it did its first test flights with bombs. Ive seen 9th AF pics of them carrying underwing 500 pounders.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 30, 2009)

The Navy did do successful carrier quals with the B-25 on the Shangri la, an Essex class carrier. I think the major opportunity lost was not having A-20s with trained aircrews at Midway.

Overall, I think the A-20 was an impressive aircraft for the early war and could have been upgraded to stay competitive except for the A-26 coming along.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 30, 2009)

davparlr said:


> The Navy did do successful carrier quals with the B-25 on the Shangri la, an Essex class carrier. I think the major opportunity lost was not having A-20s with trained aircrews at Midway.



The A20's would have suffered just as bad as the B26's. 

The problem was too many people in command still clung to a disproven tactic of medium level bombing a fast moving warship and actually hitting it.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 30, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The A20's would have suffered just as bad as the B26's.
> 
> ...



A-20 was faster then B-26 by a wide margin. 
Plus, since French DB-7s managed to survive Bf-109Es Bf-110Cs, there is no reason A-20 woudn't be able to survive Zeroes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 30, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> But it didnt. In fact, it became legendary in its low level bombing role.



THere is no question that it was useful, very useful at times but with it's limited range could it have really replace ALL other bomber types except for the B-24 in the Pacific?

I think not.



syscom3 said:


> Since it did its first test flights with bombs. Ive seen 9th AF pics of them carrying underwing 500 pounders.



Just when was the 9th AF carring the 500lbs underwing? 
the summer of 1942? 

If not it tends to put a damper on the A-20s save midway scheme.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 30, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> A-20 was faster then B-26 by a wide margin.
> Plus, since French DB-7s managed to survive Bf-109Es Bf-110Cs, there is no reason A-20 woudn't be able to survive Zeroes.



THe Early B-26s were pretty zippy. Not quite as zippy as the A-20 but better than the later models.

Problem with torpedo bombing is that if you release the torpedo at a speed much over 150knts you might as well be dropping last weeks garbage. THe fast Torpedo plane can to use it's speed to transit to the target area quicker and reduce the chance of interception. It can use it's speed to get into attack position once the taret is spotted. But it is going to have to slow down to the speed of a Devestator to make the actual drop. Once the torpedo is away the fast torpedo plane can accelerate back up to speed for it's get away.

AS the war went on both the speed and altitude requirements for the drop improved but at Midway ANYTHING carring a torpedo was going to have several minutes of low and SLOW flight.


----------



## JoeB (Nov 30, 2009)

Some comments on recent posts:

The B-17, or heavy bomber types, were indeed important as recon assets in the Pacific. In fact USN wanted similar assets after comparing the B-17 and PBY for recon in 1942, latter too vulnerable to Japanese fighters. Twins were too short ranged for such work, even the B-17's range was a drawback in that mission compared to B-24/PB4Y. B-17's scored very few hits on ships with early tactics, sometimes quite high altitude, but also did some very low altitude bombing later on which scored hits, and B-24/PB4Y's did the same for the rest of the war after B-17's were mainly retired from Pacific service in 1943 (SB-17G rescue a/c were the exception). In the right circumstances with right tactics, 4 engine bombers could also sink ships with low altitude bombing; of course German Fw-200's frequently did it too (though not right against ships with very heavy light AA armament, as some Japanese ships had later in the war, because too big a target).

The critical difference between Midway and say the Battle of Bismark Sea in early 1943 was intensive training in the right bombing tactics, and concentrated attack. If you could bring the early '43 5th AF B-25 and A-20 groups back to June '42 at Midway and launch them in a single coordinated strike, with IJN carrier location well known, and navigate directly to the target (significant 'if's), even just in the same numbers as the a/c which actually struck from Midway, they surely would have done a lot more damage (the Midway strikers did almost none, of course) with fewer losses. The A-20 was faster than the B-25, but the B-25C/D was better armed defensively with .50 power turret compared to manual twin .30's or pre-A-20G's as well as carrying more. In a sizeable tight formation diving to a skip bomb run B-25's were not easy targets for Zeroes and didn't' suffer heavy losses to them in that circumstance in SWPA (some small formations of medium altitude bombing B-25's were virtually wiped out in New Guinea by Zeroes). The type of a/c A-20, B-25 or B-26 striking from Midway wouldn't be a big difference as long as you assume groups well trained in skip bombing in concentrated formation, and flying directly to the target, not milling around looking for it. Even major IJN warships at that time didn't have sufficient AA armament to make skip bombing highly costly.

Also, the A-20 was fast enough to have good survivability against early war Japanese fighters at low level, but I think the degree of speed advantage might have been overstated. Speed quotes for Zeroes are still uncertain. I would go with the trial finding that F4F-4 and Zero Model 22 were equal in speed at s/l, which was also demonstrated in chases in combat, putting the Zero's speed around 285mph at s/l, which it's also sometimes quoted as, actually. So the A-20 was faster, assuming good condition and clean, but not 55mph, and definitely not 55mph with external load (though I don't understand the point about 'underwing' bombs. A-20's attacked ships with skip bombing using the bomb bay). As mentioned, the torpedo idea still has the problem of the torpedoes and drop speed limitation, even if the torpedo training was up to snuff; the B-26's trying torpedo attacks at Midway had almost no training in the tactic, so of course it was doomed.

Joe


----------



## davebender (Nov 30, 2009)

4 x B-26 torpedo bombers does not constitute a serious maritime attack. The U.S. Army Air Corps ordered a token effort so they could claim they were attempting to help the USN. Probably part of the continuing political struggle to prevent the USN from having land based bombers.


----------



## merlin (Nov 30, 2009)

davparlr said:


> Havoc I and IIs flew nightfighter missions for the RAF until replaced by Mosquitos, as was the Beaufighter. I don't know how successful they were but it is obvious that they were not failures. Indeed, the AAF was inspired by their performance an kicked off the P-70.
> 
> The P-70 never flew combat missions against the Axis in Europe, and in the Pacific, the P-70 had a difficult time against the Japanese, who flew bombing missions at 25,000 ft., a problem the Beaufighter would probably also have had considering the ceiling of the P-70 and Beaufighter were very similar.
> 
> I do not know where this data comes from. My source, "American Combat Planes", by Wagner shows the top speed of the A-20C (Mark III) as 342 mph and the A-20H (Mark V) (which had 1700 hp engines and was much heavier) as 333 mph. Also, I could not find a reference that showed any version of the Beaufighter having less than 1600 hp engines. Looks like apples to oranges comparison to me. Can you provide more info?



Re: Para 1 - The RAF was desparate for any aircraft to use against German bombers at night in 1940. They even tried a Havoc I with an explosive charge on the end of 2,000 feet of cable. Next, were 31 Havoc Is equiped with radar 2,700 million candle power searchlight, which buddied with a Hurricane - only success was a RAF Stirling! The Havoc II (100 ex French DB-7As) were a mixture of 12 gun 0.303" night intruder Turbinlite conversions. But once Beaufighter production got going the RAF used the 'A-20' as the Boston light bomber rather than a night-fighter.
Re: Para 2 P-70 was for the US also a stop gap aircraft - until the P-61 was ready. But it provided a useful service trianing the crews. 
According to Wm Green sevice ceiling on the P-70 was 28,250 ft., Beaufighter IF 28,900 ft., VIF 26,500 ft., Owen Thetford (in Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918) gives the Havoc I with 1,200 h.p. P W engines max speed 295 mph at 13,000 ft, service ceiling 26,000 ft., Boston III with 2 x 1,600 h.p. engines, max speed 304 mph., service ceiling 24,250 ft., Wm Green gives the A20 bomber as Max speed 317 mph at 10,000 ft interestingly - max continous speed 308 mph, and service ceiling 25,000 ft.
Re: Para 3: Beaufighter IF started with a Hercules III of 1,425 h.p.engine, and the Beaufighter II was with a Merlin.
Curious, the difference in max speeds, anybody else with ref books?

Agree though about 'apples pears' aircraft designed for different purposes.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 30, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Just when was the 9th AF carring the 500lbs underwing?
> the summer of 1942? .



The date of the pics was 1944, or so they claimed. But underwing hardpoints was a feature of prewar designs, so I would say that externally mounted bombs was a feature available in 1942


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 30, 2009)

davebender said:


> 4 x B-26 torpedo bombers does not constitute a serious maritime attack. The U.S. Army Air Corps ordered a token effort so they could claim they were attempting to help the USN. Probably part of the continuing political struggle to prevent the USN from having land based bombers.



No, it wasnt a "token" effort. It was what was available at the time. The AAF was not going to pull a stunt like what you just said when a critical battle with the japanese was looming.


----------



## JoeB (Nov 30, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> No, it wasnt a "token" effort. It was what was available at the time. The AAF was not going to pull a stunt like what you just said when a critical battle with the japanese was looming.


Agree, attributing it some kind of politics is just pulled out of the air. The 22nd BG tried torpedo attacks at Midway and the Aleutians (at the same time, and later) because they decided it might give the best results, was a pretty low level decision. But the available force was small, training not adequate, and coordination not achieved, either with the USN TBF's at Midway or the glide bombing attacks by Marine SBD's and SB2U's (which glide bombed because they weren't trained in dive bombing). Just re-running the same thing with various units that had trained thoroughly in the most effective ship attack tactics, and in working with one another, could itself have yielded a better result, without even what iffing different or more a/c. And a small force of A-20's not well trained in ship attack probably wouldn't have achieved much either, though the plane itself had a better ability to run from Zeroes on the way out than the types used. Training within the units, practicing together, and coordinating, those were the fatal deficiencies in the Midway force, besides just a limited force, but all there was to spare, without going into the ridiculous kind of what if's when you put all your eggs in one basket based of hindsight of what actually happened, pretty meaningless exercise IMO.

Joe


----------



## davebender (Nov 30, 2009)

That's why maritime attack units should belong to the navy rather then the Army Air Corps.


----------



## JoeB (Nov 30, 2009)

davebender said:


> That's why maritime attack units should belong to the navy rather then the Army Air Corps.


Sorry, doesn't really make any sense. Most of strike a/c on Midway were Navy or Marine, and were no more successful than the few Army planes. Even USN carrier a/c in 1942 had a serious deficiency in anti-shipping capability, when it came to torpedo planes. OTOH Army a/c from 1943 onward were very effective against Japanese ships, B-25's, A-20's and B-24's as well, plus the USN had good success with similar a/c (PB4Y) as well as carrier planes. IMO theories about military operations that center heavily around which service should own or should have owned the assets are usually off base, that's seldom actually the key point, and clearly wasn't in this case.

Joe


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 1, 2009)

davebender said:


> That's why maritime attack units should belong to the navy rather then the Army Air Corps.



The 5th and 13th AF's devastated Japanese shipping wherever they flew. Why should there be an artificial boundary on what branch attacks what target?


----------



## davebender (Dec 1, 2009)

> Why should there be an artificial boundary on what branch attacks what target?


There shouldn't be. Neither should there be an artificial boundary on what service branch operates which aircraft. The A-20 packs twice the punch of CV based dive and torpedo bombers. It's also a lot faster and therefore more survivable. Why shouldn't land based USN and/or USMC squadrons operate the A-20 ILO SBD dive bombers and TBF torpedo bombers?


----------



## davparlr (Dec 1, 2009)

JoeB said:


> The type of a/c A-20, B-25 or B-26 striking from Midway wouldn't be a big difference as long as you assume groups well trained in skip bombing in concentrated formation, and flying directly to the target, not milling around looking for it. Even major IJN warships at that time didn't have sufficient AA armament to make skip bombing highly costly.



I agree. Training would have been mandatory for success. Like most everything else (except for dive bombing), pre-war US military preparation was behind the eight ball.



> Also, the A-20 was fast enough to have good survivability against early war Japanese fighters at low level, but I think the degree of speed advantage might have been overstated. Speed quotes for Zeroes are still uncertain. I would go with the trial finding that F4F-4 and Zero Model 22 were equal in speed at s/l, which was also demonstrated in chases in combat, putting the Zero's speed around 285mph at s/l, which it's also sometimes quoted as, actually.



After some internet research, it seems the Model 21 speed at SLwas about 270 to 280 mph per Navy test. The F4F-3 has a Navy tested SL speed of 278 mph. 



> So the A-20 was faster, assuming good condition and clean, but not 55mph, and definitely not 55mph with external load (though I don't understand the point about 'underwing' bombs. A-20's attacked ships with skip bombing using the bomb bay).



The A-20 would still be 35 to 45 mph faster, not an insignificant advantage (if you drive on the freeway at 70 mph and a car goes by you at 105 mph, you would say, wow, he's going fast). Of course, this is clean. I also had a question about why underwing hardpoints are important.



> As mentioned, the torpedo idea still has the problem of the torpedoes and drop speed limitation, even if the torpedo training was up to snuff; the B-26's trying torpedo attacks at Midway had almost no training in the tactic, so of course it was doomed.



I agree.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 1, 2009)

davparlr said:


> After some internet research, it seems the Model 21 speed at SLwas about 270 to 280 mph per Navy test. The F4F-3 has a Navy tested SL speed of 278 mph.


The official Navy data sheet of F4F-4 quotes 284mph at s/l at military power. Here's a link about the issues with Zero stats produced by the US during WWII. It seems the test of the Akutan Zero (Ryujo a/c captured in the Aleutians) probably somewhat understated the Zero's capabilities, and was somewhat at odds with combat reports which said the Zero Model 21 was as fast or faster than the F4F-4 at all altitudes, and about as fast as the P-39D/P-400.
http://www.warbirdforum.com/zerodunn.htm

A-20C max speed at s/l I've seen quoted as 311mph as well as slightly higher numbers, so it was faster.

Joe


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 1, 2009)

davebender said:


> There shouldn't be. Neither should there be an artificial boundary on what service branch operates which aircraft. The A-20 packs twice the punch of CV based dive and torpedo bombers. It's also a lot faster and therefore more survivable. Why shouldn't land based USN and/or USMC squadrons operate the A-20 ILO SBD dive bombers and TBF torpedo bombers?



They did operate B-24s, B-25s and Ventura's.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 1, 2009)

JoeB said:


> The official Navy data sheet of F4F-4 quotes 284mph at s/l at military power. Here's a link about the issues with Zero stats produced by the US during WWII. It seems the test of the Akutan Zero (Ryujo a/c captured in the Aleutians) probably somewhat understated the Zero's capabilities, and was somewhat at odds with combat reports which said the Zero Model 21 was as fast or faster than the F4F-4 at all altitudes, and about as fast as the P-39D/P-400.
> http://www.warbirdforum.com/zerodunn.htm
> 
> A-20C max speed at s/l I've seen quoted as 311mph as well as slightly higher numbers, so it was faster.
> ...



All of these numbers are probably within the probability of error of measuring, design, manufacturing, etc.

I do think it is impressive that the A-20 could give most fighters a run for its money (life?) in the 1940 to 42 time frame. It seems to be an under appreciated and probably under utilized aircraft.


----------



## Glider (Dec 2, 2009)

I think its worth mentioning that the RAF preferred the early versions of the Boston over the later versions, keepinng them in service as long as they could. Indeed past when they were supposed to have converted.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 2, 2009)

merlin said:


> According to Wm Green sevice ceiling on the P-70 was 28,250 ft., Beaufighter IF 28,900 ft., VIF 26,500 ft., Owen Thetford (in Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918) gives the Havoc I with 1,200 h.p. P W engines max speed 295 mph at 13,000 ft, service ceiling 26,000 ft., Boston III with 2 x 1,600 h.p. engines, max speed 304 mph., service ceiling 24,250 ft., Wm Green gives the A20 bomber as Max speed 317 mph at 10,000 ft interestingly - max continous speed 308 mph, and service ceiling 25,000 ft.


Re: actual P-70 combat record, it only claimed 2 victories, though one was the first USAAF night fighter squadron claim of WWII, a 'Sally' claimed over Guadalcanal April 18/19 1943 by 6th NFS (a Type 1 Land Attack Plane, 'Betty', of the 705th Air Group JNAF failed to return from a mission over Guadalcanal that night). Thereafter as mentioned the Japanese twin enging bomber hecklers tended to fly higher. As hecklers, they were there to disrupt sleep and wear down morale if possible, and weren't really aiming at specific targets. For a real night bomber, even area bomber, there were drawbacks to flying so high. The 6th NFS considered 22k ft as max useful for their P-70's and they reported it took 45 minutes to reach 27k. Also, the radar equipment used to tend to give out at high altitude, a well known phenomenon that still affects some electronic equipment designed for lower altitudes (like laser designator pods originally conceived for low altitude now used for high, arcing of circuits in thinner air at high altitude has to be addressed). Those P-70's had SCR-540 radars, which was based on the British AI Mk.IV; some early P70's had the British set.

The other credit was May 15, '43, I don't know the Japanese side, 705th didn't lose any a/c that night.

The 6th also tried P-38's without radar guided by searchlights to deal with high altitude hecklers.

Joe


----------



## davparlr (Dec 3, 2009)

RAF No. 85 Squadron flew Havoc I and IIs as night fighters from Feb 1941 to Sep 1942. It would be interesting to know their successes (their first claim was two days after delivery).


----------



## parsifal (Dec 3, 2009)

Its not at all clear to me that A-20s were only partially successful as Night fighters, and that Beafighters were only partially successful as strike aircraft. 

I am reading a book at the moment titled "1941 - Part 2 - The blitz to the non-stop offensive" by John Foreman. It covers day by day operations with individual successes and losses for each side over the NW European TO from April through to the end of June 1941. A really intersting read. Though the Beafighters eventually became the prime movers in the night air defences over England, and operating in the night intruder role over France, it was anything but a mainstay until at least the end of April. The mainstays at that point were the relatively short ranged Defiants, with the more long ranged intruder roles sort of shared equally between the Havocs and Beafighters....but the Havocs appear to have the upper hand in the number of confirmed kills

Conversely, Beafighters were very successful in the anti shipping role, at least in Europe. For example 454 squadron sank an entire 8 ship convoy in early 1944, for no loss, an accomplishment rivalling Bismarck Sea in terms of its devastation, but with far fewer aircraft involved. 

Wildcat mentioned that RAAF Beafighters were not used as torpedo bomber in the Pacific, which is true at least up until early 1944, when the locally produced Mk 21 was introduced. I am surpised however that this mark never carried torpedoes. It was certainly designed and equipped to do so, (not all marks of the Beafighter were so equipped). Rocket firing Beaus were very effective at merchant shipping kills, and by 1944, there were not that many opportunities to attack heavy Japanese warships from Australian occupied bases.....so perhaps it was just a case of the target types presenting themselves as dictating the loadouts for the Australian Mk 21. I do know that as 1944 progressed, more and more Beaforts were assigned to transport and other ancillary roles, not because the Beafort was obsolete, but more because there just werent that many targets presenting themselves. The Japanese by then, in the SWPac were relying mostly on barges and subs for re-supply 

I am inclined to say both aircraft were very useful to the allied war effort for a wide range of roles and purposes. Very difficult to say one was more important or useful than the other....


----------



## davparlr (Dec 4, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I am inclined to say both aircraft were very useful to the allied war effort for a wide range of roles and purposes. Very difficult to say one was more important or useful than the other....



Both were a nemesis to the Axis and performed invaluable service. I just watched the latest Mummy movie, and, unless I am mistaken, a Beaufighter starred in it.


----------

