# Douglas A-20 Havoc



## V-1710 (Jan 28, 2006)

One of my favorites, but a plane somewhat forgotten. I have heard it was a real joy to fly.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 28, 2006)

It was a devestating plane to use in the SW Pacific.

Perfect for low level attacks on airfields and ships.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

It was also a beautiful plane and it had a very long service life, being used in Vietnam also.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 28, 2006)

I think it was the A26 that was used in Vietnam


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I think it was the A26 that was used in Vietnam



The A-26 was used In Viet Nam, the A-20 was one of those aircraft that disappeared quickly after WW2. There is one at Fox Field, Lancaster Ca., at a small museum there, it was a converted executive hack supposedly used by Howard Hughes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

Oops got them confused there. Sorry about that. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## V-1710 (Jan 29, 2006)

Interesting A-20 trivia: The fuselage was too narrow to permit the crew to change positions in flight. Early A-20's had flight controls in the dorsal gunner's compartment. In the event that the gunner had to fly the plane, he opened the canopy, swiveled and raised his seat, and looked through a small folding windshield. Early A-20's also had a dorsal gunner's position, basically consisting of a window in the floor and a .30 cal.. The A-20 was also the basis of the U.S.A.A.C.'s first successful night fighter, the P-70.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 29, 2006)

I dont think the A20 was the basis of the P61.

Totally different airframe, engines, avionics and design philosophy between Douglas and Northrup.

I would agree to say that the P70 was the interim night fighter untill the P61 could be deployed.


----------



## mandoman (Jan 29, 2006)

Is there really a difference between the A20, and the P70, except for armament of course? I know there were different nose configurations, but the P70 was basically the A20. It was like the Germans using earlier civillian transport aircraft as bombers by modifying them to one degree, or another.  javascript:emoticon('')
glasses7


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I dont think the A20 was the basis of the P61.
> 
> Totally different airframe, engines, avionics and design philosophy between Douglas and Northrup.
> 
> I would agree to say that the P70 was the interim night fighter untill the P61 could be deployed.



Yep, and although Northrop and Douglas work on a lot of projects together (Jack Northrop worked for Douglas at one time) by the time the P-61 was on the scene they were competitors. As a matter of fact the A-20 was one of the first Ed Heinerman designs.

I believe the P-61 was designed by Vladimir H. Pavlecka.

And for you Southern California Boys - the test pilot on the A-20 was a fellow by the name of John Cable - his dad founded Cable airport. He was killed in an A-20....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

mandoman said:


> Is there really a difference between the A20, and the P70, except for armament of course? I know there were different nose configurations, but the P70 was basically the A20. It was like the Germans using earlier civillian transport aircraft as bombers by modifying them to one degree, or another.  javascript:emoticon('')
> glasses7



The USAAF was planning to put a search radar in the A-20 about the time Northrop made a proposal to the AAF for what would become the P-61. I believe the P-70 had the same radar in it as the P-61, but they were two distinct aircraft, and ther P-70 never really influenced the P-61.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 30, 2006)

Are you forgetting the British Bostons with Turbinlites (ok the system wasn't that successful but they stil had radar)


----------



## Wildcat (Jan 30, 2006)

Hi guys, thought I would post these pics of a restored Boston owned by the RAAF Museum. I remember seeing this old girl being restored at RAAF base Amberley some years back.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2006)

Nice shots Wildcat!! They did a great job on her restoration. If I'm not mistaken she is painted up like the Havoc/ Boston depicted in the old Revelle 1/72nd kit...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 30, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> .....If I'm not mistaken she is painted up like the Havoc/ Boston depicted in the old Revelle 1/72nd kit...



 

I remember that kit!

Revelle and Monogram made the best models! Followed by Aurora and then Lindberg Line.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > .....If I'm not mistaken she is painted up like the Havoc/ Boston depicted in the old Revelle 1/72nd kit...
> ...



Yep!  I bought 2 or 3 of them so I could build each version!!


----------



## Wildcat (Jan 31, 2006)

Did you paint it up in RAAF colours?


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 31, 2006)

Nice pics Wildcat.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 31, 2006)

One of the planes I want to make- she looks gorgeous in those pics Wildcat


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2006)

Wildcat said:


> Did you paint it up in RAAF colours?


Just like the one yo showed!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2006)

Beautiful! Nice shots!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 31, 2006)

Heres what the RAF Turbinlite A20's looked like.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2006)

WOW!!!


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 31, 2006)

thats a little overkill for a landing light  did the crew have special goggles? and any cloud would certainly be a hoot


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2006)

You shot down your enemy by blinding them!!!


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 1, 2006)

Wouldn't surprise me if it did, they had something like half a ton of batteries in the bomb bay to power it as well...


----------



## Wildcat (Feb 1, 2006)

Apparently the search light was 2700million candlepower!!


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 1, 2006)

It was used to illuminate targets found with the on-board radar so that Hurrican night-fighters could see them to shoot at them, not the biggest success story


----------



## evangilder (Feb 1, 2006)

I could imagine that light would make you an instant target for the nightfighters and the flak gunners. "Here I am!"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

Holly crap talk about High beams.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2006)

a mossie was also experimentally fitted with the system for use over germany.......


----------



## Canaris (Sep 26, 2007)

Great shots of the Turbinlite!

I've been looking for pictures of one of those for years now.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Sep 27, 2007)

The P-70 (the USAAF night fighter version of the A-20) may have had a decent chance of being successful if they would have put turbo-superchargers on them. Same thing for the Navy's Venturas. The P-61A and B also didn't have turbo-superchargers and it was finally put on for the P61-C. I don't understand why they didn't install the turbo-superchargers on earlier aircraft.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 29, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep, and although Northrop and Douglas work on a lot of projects together (Jack Northrop worked for Douglas at one time) by the time the P-61 was on the scene they were competitors. As a matter of fact the A-20 was one of the first Ed Heinerman designs.



My reference indicate that the Douglas 7B (Prototype of the A-20) was originally a Northrop design which was finished by Heinemann.


----------



## hermancl3 (Nov 12, 2007)

I met a gentleman over the weekend who flew A20 his plane was called
The Belle Of Bells.


----------



## Negative Creep (Nov 12, 2007)

Always struck me as an odd system. In the time it would take you to line up a bomber with the light you could've fired hundreds of rounds into it with the regular nose


----------



## Freebird (Nov 13, 2007)

Don't forget that the A-20 was an important part of the Soviet AF too, I think we sent about 3,000+ to Russia. I was on a trip to Russia last summer, I looked for any of the Bostons that were sent over there, but they don't keep lend-lease on display, only Russian stuff


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 13, 2007)

I always thought the A-20 was UGLY...

Not near the beauty of the A-26 or B-26!

.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 13, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> I always thought the A-20 was UGLY...
> 
> Not near the beauty of the A-26 or B-26!
> 
> .



Yah but neither of them were available in '41! They did very well in the desert too. I kinda like the aircraft, I didn't think it was ugly


----------



## maxs75 (Nov 14, 2007)

Marshall_Stack said:


> The P-70 (the USAAF night fighter version of the A-20) may have had a decent chance of being successful if they would have put turbo-superchargers on them. Same thing for the Navy's Venturas. The P-61A and B also didn't have turbo-superchargers and it was finally put on for the P61-C. I don't understand why they didn't install the turbo-superchargers on earlier aircraft.



The original P-70 was derived from the A-20 (without letter) that was to be the turbosupercharged high-altitude version of A-20 (vs A-20A medium altitude). The engines had cooling troubles, I don't know if they were deployed in combat zones.
The later versions P-70A and P-70B were derived from A-20C and G, and I believe that they didn't have turbosupercharged engines.
Any info about engine types of P-70A/B and early P-70?

Max


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 14, 2007)

From Joe B's......

_"Since the USAAF had no night fighter units when the USA entered World War 2, a night fighter training organization was established at Orlando, Florida. Most of the P-70 Nighthawk aircraft served there with the 481st Night Fighter Operational Training Group to develop tactics and procedures for radar-controlled night interceptions and to train the crews of nineteen night fighter squadrons. Very few of these P-70s ever went overseas, most remaining in the USA to be passed on to the next night fighter units that needed to be trained. Most units trained on the P-70 were reequipped with the Northrop P-61 Black Widow before they transferred overseas. 

Only five night fighter squadrons were still equipped with P-70s at the time they were deployed overseas. Four P-70-trained night fighter squadrons were sent with their aircraft to North Africa in 1943 for service with the Twelfth Air Force. However, when they got there, these outfits used Bristol Beaufighter VIF fighters obtained from Britain under Reverse Lend-Lease. The 427th Night Figher Squadron took its P-70s with it when it deployed to Italy, but the squadron exchanged its P-70s for Northrop P-61 Black Widows before it became operational. 

The P-70 actually saw some combat action in the Pacific Theatre, although their service there was quite brief. The 6th Night Fighter Squadron began operations in February of 1943 with its P-70s from Henderson Field, Guadalcanal, in an attempt to intercept high-flying Japanese night raiders. It was later supplanted by the 419th Night Fighter Squadron. The 418th and 421st Night Fighter Squadrons flew P-70s operationally in New Guinea for a brief time. The P-70 was not very successful in combat, scoring only two kills during the entire war. The P-70 lacked sufficient performance to intercept Japanese night raiders unless it was extremely fortunate. P-70s were replaced with P-61s just as soon as these aircraft would be made available."_

Douglas P-70


----------



## CaptRon (Mar 19, 2008)

Would everyone please look at this ring and tell me if you think the plane on the side is a A20...........Thanks Ron


----------



## Johnny Signor (Sep 22, 2008)

The Commemorative Air Force In Texas has an A-20,it used to fly,not sure if it still does and a couple were recently recovered overseas to be restored,and there is a real nice one in the USAF Museum in Ohio!


----------



## mandoman (May 9, 2010)

CaptRon said:


> Would everyone please look at this ring and tell me if you think the plane on the side is a A20...........Thanks Ron



Looks like an A-Generic blob.  Sorry.


----------



## Waynos (May 10, 2010)

I think its close enough to call it an A-20, the topline of the fuselage is closest.

As I understand it the aircraft that became the A-20 was first ordered by the French, as the DB-7, its makers designation, outstanding orders then taken over by the British who ordered some more and coined the name Boston for the bomber and Havoc for nightfighter conversions and was then ordered by the USAAC/F who adopted the name Havoc for all versions. Would that be right?


----------



## mandoman (May 11, 2010)

comiso90 said:


> I always thought the A-20 was UGLY...
> 
> Not near the beauty of the A-26 or B-26!
> 
> .



Man, I think the A-20 is a really nice looking prop. aircraft. I only know how it performed by reading what the experts have to say, but I always liked how it looks. JMHO.


----------



## Maxrobot1 (May 30, 2010)

The A-20s were well liked by the 5th Air Force and in the book "Flying Buccaneers" by Steve Birdsall it mentions that Genl. Kenney did not want A-26s. 
For low altitude work the A-26s "long broad nose, and the placement of the engines in particular, reduced visibility enough to restrict the use of the aircraft at low levels."
Apparently as A-20s in Europe were replaced by A-26s, the A-20s were sent to the Pacific to keep the A-20 groups up to strength.
There was a lot less low-level work over Europe but in the pacific when it came to low level attack and flying between island mountains making attacks while watching for enemy A/C and trying to avoid colliding with your squadron mates the A-20 was preferred.


----------



## Sydhuey (Nov 16, 2010)

G'day All,
New on here and thought i'd start on this thread , the A-20 Boston/Havoc is my favorite aircraft, it was well ahead of its time when it came out and was an extreamly versitile aircraft the US /Metal equal to the Mosquito, the A-20 was one of the few a/c that the pilot could turn into a dead engine and fly quite well, a story goes of a senior RAAF Boston pilot who gave a demo to 22 sqn and others in New Guinea, he took off shut down one engine turned into that engine did a full curcuit of the field did an areobatic display started the shut down engine up and landed, I think the Mossie was about the only other twin in WW2 that could do that, 22 Sqn had a race against a 30 sqn Beaufighter after 22 sqn Bostons beat Beaufighters back from some missions, both a/c were prepaired by the maintainers of their sqn's unfortunatley the 22 sqn maintainers gor carried away and removed the ram air intake fron the top of the engine cowl to reduce drag, the engines ran to rich and the Beaufighter beat the Boston by about 50 m on a 50mile curcuit with white smoke poring out of the Boston engines, but they both beat a Kittyhawk which also joined the race by more than a 1/4 mile, after the race the Kittyhawk sqns said why did the Beaufighters and Bostons need escort when they could go faster on the deck than a Kittyhawk or any jap fighter.

will post more on the Boston /Havoc in Australian and 5th AF use over the coming weeks.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 16, 2010)

"... A-20 was one of the few a/c that the pilot could turn into a dead engine and fly quite well, a story goes of a senior RAAF Boston pilot who gave a demo to 22 sqn and others in New Guinea, he took off shut down one engine turned into that engine did a full curcuit of the field did an areobatic display started the shut down engine up and landed"

Experienced pilots could do that with the B-26 Marauder as well, I believe.

MM


----------



## kration (Nov 16, 2010)

Two comments re. the Boston/Havoc:

First, it has always surprised me that it was never fully developed into a nightfighter. I know the P61 was more advanced (as well as being late) but I think that the Havoc/Boston could have been an effective platform as a stop-gap if more investment had been put into it. From reading 'Beaufighters in the Night' I'm amazed that the US wasn't able to bring forward a nightfighter more quickly and was reduced to using British cast-off Beaufighters (good though they were). The Havoc seemed to have the same potential as the Beaufighter/DO-217/JU-88 model i.e. adapt a medium-bomber to shoot down other bombers.

Second, if you want to see decent film footage of Bostons, then get a copy of the film 'The Way to the Stars' starring John Mills. There are some good close-ups and footage of RAF Bostons - as well as B-17's in the latter half of the film.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 16, 2010)

Welcome aboard Sid


----------



## Wildcat (Nov 17, 2010)

Sydhuey said:


> will post more on the Boston /Havoc in Australian and 5th AF use over the coming weeks.



Cool, looking forward to it and welcome aboard!


----------



## Milosh (Nov 17, 2010)

I posted high quality Havoc drawings here,
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/schematics/havoc-drawings-20461.html


----------



## Sydhuey (Nov 18, 2010)

G'day michaelmaltby, the B-26 was a bit of a hotrod and could be flown quite well on one, but it had one of the highest wing loadings of the war and I have been told was a handful to fly, I would not like to throw it about on one engine like a Boston/Havoc or Mosquito both of which were suposidly a joy to fly in any role , the B-26 was one of the best medium bombers of the war and was superior to the B-25 in medium level bombing (10-15000'), but not so good at low altitude, in the early days of the pacific war the 22nd bomb group did some incredible things (Desperate!) with there B-26's (in the first 6 months of operations of the 22nd approx 1/3 of the crews were RAAF) (Co-pilots,gunners,navigators)until the US could supply enough crews and the RAAF could get some aircraft, then the B-26 was replaced in the low level role with A-20's and B-25's and in the Bombing role by B-24's.
Unfortunatly not enough is writen about the early days of the pacific war in 1942 in New Guinea when alot of the US sqn's had RAAF crews in them to make up numbers,the problem was the RAAF had combat experianced crews home from the Mid East and Europe but no modern aircraft, the US had some aircraft trickling into Australia but no experianced crews, in fact the co-pilot of the B-26 Linden B Johnson (Future US President) got his Silver Star in was an RAAF Sargent pilot- G.A. McMullin, none of the crew got decorated for the mission but the VIP passenger (and future president) got a Silver Star?????

Anyway back to the A-20's, I have been told that the tactic of turning into the dead engine first happened with a South African Boston in North Africa it had an engine shot out and was returning to base when jumped by a 109 as the German pilot came in for his attack he assumed the Boston would turn into his good engine, it turned into the dead engine and thru off the attack, something that couldn't be done with the Blenheim, Beaufort or Wellington.


----------



## Sydhuey (Nov 18, 2010)

A quick overview of the A-20 in the pacific 42-43.

The first A-20's in the South-West Pacific were the 32 DB-7B's diverted from a British order as an interim supply to the NEI Navy until 48 DB-7C's could be manufactured(the DB-7C's eventualy all went to Russia) of these 32 a/c only 6 made it to Java one was assembled and then captured intact at least one of the other 5 was also captured in its case (one of the captured machines was retaken in Japan after the war it still had its original RAF serial on it "AL904"), 22 of these a/c made it to Australia on refugee ships to form the nucleus of Boston operations with the RAAF with 22 Sqn and the last 4 were taken over by the USAAF.

These 22 Bostons were the first of 69 Bostons operaated by the RAAF
22 x DB-7B's A28-1 to A28-22
9 x A-20C's A28-23 to A28-31
9 x A20-A's A28-32 to A28-40(ex 89 Bomb Sqn 3rd Attack Grp)
29 x A-20G's A28-50 to A28-78

The Boston was used by 22 Sqn from Mar/Apr 42 going into action Nov 42 from Port Morsby till there last Boston Mission 07 Dec 44 when replaced by Beaufighters.
The 22 DB-7's were heavily used though 43 and by Oct 43 only 9 of the 22 were left. 
9 A-20C's were supplied by the US at about this time, these A-20C's were the only A20C's used in the SouthWest Pacific as the US only used A-20A's then going to A-20G's, these A-20C's were unique in that they are the only A-20's I can find anywere with a unique nose configuration, all the A-20A's and DB-7's had 4 x .50 machineguns mounted thru what was the bomb aimers flat glass panel to supliment the 4 x .303/.30 machine guns in the cheek positions this was the original Pappy Gunn mod program to turn them into staffers the A-20C's had 2 x .50 cheak guns instead of the 4 x .303/.30's and they kept the bomb aimers glass and mounted a strike camera behind the flat glass pane then mounted 3 x .50's high in the nose, these 9 are the only A-20 Boston/Havoc's configured as such I can find in all my reserrch on the A-20 family.These a/c were used heavily losing 5 of the 9 in combat until the US was able to suppliment with A-20G's

The A-20A's were hand me downs from the 89 th bomb sqn when they transitioned onto B-25's in Sep 43 these were the last 9 servicable A-20's in the 5th Airforce until they could get large supplies of brand new A-20G's at the end of 1943, the 89 Bomb Sqn and the whole 3rd Attack Group then converted to the A-20G, these A-20A's were never used on operations by 22 Sqn as they were officialy "war weary"ie: worn out! but used as trainers and test a/c in New Guinea and Australia.

The A-20G's started to come to 22 Sqn in june 44 as by then the Sqn was down under 10 a/c again A28-50 to A28-64 were A-20G-40-DO's with Martin power turrets , A28-65 to A28-68 were A-20G-45-DO's , A28-75 to A28-78 were A-20G-45-DO's as well all thes a/c were used on operations and greatly increased the operational capability of 22 Sqn, A28-69 to A28-74 were A-20G-10-DO's without the martin power turret and were never used on Operations as the older Bostons remaining by this stage and the G-10's were used as trainers and hacks.

Significant Australian Bostons.
A28-8 DU-J "Jessica"the restored Boston at the RAAF Museum Point Cook was the last of the 240 a/c build for France at Douglas Const# 3839 (240 also build by Boeing) taken over by the RAF, RAF serial # AL907 , only 3 away from the machine recovered in Japan after the war (AL904).
A28-77 A-20G-45DO Const # 21898 US serial # 43-22251 Last G model built.
A28-78 was a A-20G-45-DO, NOT a A-20J-20-DO as published in various publications a typo on the RAAF records recorded the US serial# as 43-22140(which was a A-20J) instead of 43-22148, photos have now surfaced to show it as A28-78 DU-R and clearly a A-20G.

Next time more about the early 89 Bomb Sqn A-20's


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Nov 19, 2010)

Sydhuey said:


> G'day All,
> ... the A-20 was one of the few a/c that the pilot could turn into a dead engine and fly quite well...



The P-61 could do that also and very well. A favorite trick performed by John Meyer... aka the Maestro... when the P-61 was introducted to the pilots in the Pacific.


----------



## Sydhuey (Nov 19, 2010)

Ok , before every Tom, Dick and Harry tell me about a/c with good single engine performance I will clarify , before about 1943 ie: the early war years, the A20 and the Mosquito were about the only twin engine aircraft about with EXCEPTIONAL single engine performance many others would get you home on one but thats about all, I remember reading the single engine climb rate for a DH Dragon Rapid was -5ft min, so when on one there was only one direction and that was down, as the war went on and the 2000 hp+ engines became available and started to be fitted to a/c , very good single engine performance started to be the norm, remember the A-20/Boston family was in production in 1939 and stayed in production till end of 1944 ,a/c like the Black Widow (which is also one of my favorites) were not even on the drawing board then.
Even today some twin engine a/c have very average performance and some are exceptional, the 757 is in the exceptional class for single engine performance.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 20, 2010)

Guess English-speaking people would've called me Tom 

You do know that P-61 was beyond drawing-board stage even in 1943? 
On a more positive note, A-20/DB-7/Boston/Havoc is one of my favorite planes ever


----------



## Sydhuey (Jan 22, 2011)

From early 1942 till late 1943 the only 2 units operating the A-20/Boston they were 89th BSqn 3rd Attack Group and 22 Sqn RAAF (not counting 18 sqn NEI as they only had A-20/Bostons for a couple of weeks) , the 89th brought from the states approx. three dozen A-20A's these a/c were actualy operated by them in the states and I have photos of these a/c in the US still with the red dot in the star and red and white rudder strips all these markings removed before New Guinea at approx the same time the 89th were forming up in Australia and getting organised for New Guinea (Mar-May42) 22 Sqn was re equiping on the 22 DB7-B's intended for the NEI Navy but became refugee a/c in Melbourne Australia, around Aug-Sep 1942 as both sqns had started there moves to New Guinea, it was about the time the Legendary "Pappy Gunn" came up with his now famous straffers, he had planned the mods to B-25's and A-20's since June 42 and by September was into a full modification program the 89th Sqn A-20's were the first to be done with 4x .50 machineguns in thru the bombaimers glass position together with the cheek 4 x .30's then 22sqn got there 19 remaining Bostons similarly modified, though when it became known at RAAF headquarters Melbourne in late 1942 that 22Sqn had modified there Bostons into Straffers RAAF HQ "viewed with concern" that the Bostons had been so modified with out HQ giving the matter "due consideration", investigations failed to discover who had approved the modifications but HQ suspected that either the Sqn Commander or the senior RAAF officer in the area, but sent letters to the Senior RAAF officer in North Qld and the 22 Sqn Commander "in strong terms that they would be held resposible for this breach in orders" , as we all now know Pappy's mods to the A-20 and B-25 were some of the best war winning mods carried out to aircraft in the field in WW2 and latter marks of both a/c incorperated these mods and improved on them direct from the factory.
These approx 40 a/c with both sqn's then flew without replacements thoughout late 42 until by Aug 1943 both sqn's were down to approx 9 a/c each, the decision was made to convert the 89th to B-25 Straffers as adequate supplies of B-25's were available but no A-20's had arrived in theatre since 42, in Sep 1943, 9 x A-20C's became available and went to 22Sqn as replacement a/c, the last 9 remaining ex 89 sqn A-20A's also went to 22 Sqn ,these A-20C's were the only C models to operate in the SW Pacific and were unique in there weapons fit , they had 2 x .50 machineguns in the cheek positions instead of 4 x .30's and kept the bomb aimers glass with a strike camera mounted behind it with 3 x .50 machine guns mounted above the glass, these remaining DB-7B's, A-20C's and A-20A's kept 22 Sqn going until large numbers of A-20G's became available to the RAAF in Jun 44. 22 Sqn was the only A-20 /Boston unit in theatre from Sep43 to Jan 44.
89 th Sqn ran a mix of their few remaining A-20A's and B-25's until Jan 44 when large numbers of A-20G's became available to US units and the whole 3rd Attack Grp converted to A-20G's, their B-25's then went to the 345th Bomb Grp (Air Apache) , it was also at his time (Jan thru Mar 44) that the 312th and 417th Bomb Groups came on line with A-20G's, in a 5 month period from Sep 43 to Feb 44 the New Guinea area went from 2 sqns with approx. 18-24 wornout early A-20/Bostons to 13 Sqns with 120+ A-20G's with the 12 US Sqn's and 20+ DB7-B's, A-20C's and A-20A's with 22 Sqn RAAF.


----------



## Sydhuey (Jan 22, 2011)

RAAF Modified A-20C's with 3 x .50's above the still installed bomb aimers glass with strike camera mounted behind and 1 x .50 in each cheek position


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 22, 2011)

I never knew a lot about the A-20, but I have to say the more I learn the more I like the plane.


----------



## renrich (Jan 25, 2011)

I have always been a fan of the A20 also. It seems to be a bit of an underappreciated AC. Seems to me that one handicap it might have had as a night fighter is that it had no room for a radar operator near the pilot, like the Beaufighter and P61 had.


----------



## kration (Jan 29, 2011)

renrich said:


> I have always been a fan of the A20 also. It seems to be a bit of an underappreciated AC. Seems to me that one handicap it might have had as a night fighter is that it had no room for a radar operator near the pilot, like the Beaufighter and P61 had.



In the Beaufighter I think the pilot and radar operator were remote from each other separated by a fuel tank.


----------



## jamierd (Jan 29, 2011)

the radar operator in the beaufighter was half way between the pilot and the tail
with a large bulkhead door between them too


----------



## BOATTRASH1 (Mar 26, 2011)

New on here as of today. Really enjoyed reading this thread. 
I was always told the A-20 was the best plane in the air. But that was probably a biased opinion
My father was a pilot in the 89 Attack Squadron. He was in Savannah Ga. on Dec. 7, '41 and shipped out in early Jan of '42. He didn't talk a lot about his experiences and when he did I should have listened more. I did meet some of his squadron mates at a reunion in Galveston TX in '96. 
From what I remember when they first got to Australia they were camped at Ascot race track in Brisbane. I have a photo of my dad at that location. Then they went up to Charter's Towers where I believe they had to help build their own strip. They didn't have any aircraft yet and when they heard about some B-25's in Brisbane they went down and stole them (from the Dutch Air Force I believe). I asked at the reunion if my dad was involved in this and they indicated he had been. This allowed them to get ready to start hitting back at the Japanese. Pappy Gunn was involved in getting these ac ready to go to work.
Not sure of the time line when they finally got the A-20's but it wasn't long after the aircraft theft. 
In New Guinea I believe he was based at Three Mile Drome ast Port Moresby.
Things I do remember were him telling me that they had no charts in the beginning and flew with maps torn from National Geographic magazine which may have had the max height of the Owen Stanley Range incorrect. Weather was often pretty bad crossing the range to strike the Japanese on the North Shore. I know he was involved in the first use of parafrags (Gen. Kinney's idea) which occurred at Lae. I have an old black and white aerial photo of Lae with some grease pencil markings on it and some notations on the back regarding time for B-25's to strafe and A-20's to come in and drop the parafrags. I remember him telling me he missed out on the Bismark Sea fun as he was in Australia in a hospital w/ Dengue Fever.
I have a good book by Gen. Kinney which is basically a day by day diary from when he got tapped by McAurthur to replace the then head of the 5th AF. (Gen. Royce ?)
Anyway, glad I found this place and will post more as time allows and I find more stuff.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Mar 26, 2011)

Excellent, and welcome to the forum. When you get ready to post more of this info you might want to start your own thread. This will keep the Mods happy and you can go back at any time and ad more to it without have other things posted in and around. And I along with everyone else probably, am eagerly awaiting the next installment in this history lesson and thank you for posting.


----------



## Airframes (Mar 26, 2011)

Great info, and welcome to the forum.


----------



## Sydhuey (Mar 28, 2011)

Great to have you on BOATTRASH1, love the A-20 my favorite a/c , as the others said open your own thread looking fwd to it , the 89th and 22sqn RAAF were the only A-20 units in the dark days thru late 42 and 43 till the mass inputs of A-20G's from the US in early 44, Your Father was at the forefront of the time period of holding the Japanese at bay then the turning from defensive to offensive operations in the Pacific.


----------

