# B-26: any improvement over B-25?



## tomo pauk (Sep 14, 2011)

Or, was it worth it?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 14, 2011)

It is a good question, as a "bomb truck" the B-26 couldn't really haul much (if any) more bombs. While it was faster, neither one could operate in defended airspace without escort.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 14, 2011)

Since both were ordered into production at the same time you could ask the reverse - was the B-25 any improvement over the B-26?

Which then begs the question - was it waste of resources building both?

Should the USAAC have chosen one or the other?

Andif they preferred the B-25, would they have liked a version with R-2800s?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 14, 2011)

The B-26 was definitely a tough plane to master - with higher wing-loading than the Mitchell. That said, the B-26 had the highest crew survivability record of any US bomber in WW2. And one clear distinction - the B-26 was designed to carry torpedoes as well as 
bombs. 

You know the USA, tomo pauk, they never like to have all their eggs in one ... basket. 

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 15, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Since both were ordered into production at the same time you could ask the reverse - was the B-25 any improvement over the B-26?



Contract for B-25 precedes the one for B-26 for a month (aug '40 vs sept '40?), so B-26 was just a tad later 



> Which then begs the question - was it waste of resources building both?



Indeed...



> Should the USAAC have chosen one or the other?
> 
> Andif they preferred the B-25, would they have liked a version with R-2800s?



With hindsight, and if we count all the pluses minuses, B-25 served better for Allied cause - a far better choice IMO. 
The version with R-2800 was tested, but didn't stand up well for 10% increase in power (engineers were warning that plane was not that sturdy prior the flight?).



michaelmaltby said:


> The B-26 was definitely a tough plane to master - with higher wing-loading than the Mitchell. That said, the B-26 had the highest crew survivability record of any US bomber in WW2. And one clear distinction - the B-26 was designed to carry torpedoes as well as
> bombs.



What was mission profile, so our B-26s received such an accolade? Were they flying mostly after 1943 (with bugs sorted out, and in conditions of Allied air superiority)?



> You know the USA, tomo pauk, they never like to have all their eggs in one ... basket.
> 
> MM



That makes sense; one of the eggs was...problematic, though


----------



## JoeB (Sep 15, 2011)

In a few cases the B-26's (original small winged versions) better speed v B-25 was important. For example, in unescorted bombing missions from Port Moresby to Lae in summer 1942 by both types in separate small formations. The B-25's took heavier losses to Zero's because they were easier to catch. The B-26 was difficult for the Model 21 Zero to overtake unless the fighter started in a favorable altitude position. But serious fighter interception of unescorted mediums was not common in later Pacific campaigns, and in MTO/ETO the bombers were usually in bigger formations unable to use their max speed, and the enemy fighters were faster too, so the B-26's speed advantage wasn't a factor either, and the advantage decreased in later models as well.

Joe


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 15, 2011)

"... What was mission profile, so our B-26s received such an accolade? Were they flying mostly after 1943 (with bugs sorted out, and in conditions of Allied air superiority)?"

Largest "profile" probably the rail, canal, road, bridge targets in France - behind the Normandie bridgehead leading up to June 6, 1944.

Every "advance" brings with it "bugs". I think the telling factor is how quickly the USAAF dropped the B-26 after WW2 ended. Most in service were destroyed overseas IIRC. The B-25 served for years after in the RCAF and other forces. My Ferry Cmd Uncle remembered the B-25 as very docile with no bad habits.  Most of his time was logged on B-24's.

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 15, 2011)

Thanks, JoeB 

Michael - that was my point: B-26 was largely attacking Axis assets in the time of Allied air supremacy.


----------



## renrich (Sep 15, 2011)

Some B25C-D were configured to carry a torpedo externally. Interestingly the production numbers of both AC were close, around 5000 plus with a few more B25s made. The B25 was probably a little easier to fly well but the B26 did serve very well in the ETO and early on in the Pacific. I believe that Lyndon Johnson received a medal for a mission flown in a B26 around New Guinea. I got close to a B26 at Planes of Fame Museum and was surprised at how large it was. There was also a Sunderland there ( not close by) and they seemed to be about the same size.

The B26 flew missions in the Med and during the Italian campaign when the Axis still had a lot of punch in their air defenses.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 15, 2011)

There were almost 10K of B-25s produced


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 15, 2011)

Did not the B26 have the lowest loss rate in combat of all US bombers thar certainly must count , I believe it was under 1%. That might even be lower then the Mosquito. They were very active in the ETO from 42 onwards


----------



## rochie (Sep 15, 2011)

be surprised if a B-26 is the same size as a Sunderland but could be wrong !


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 15, 2011)

It might have seemed as big, but they're not really close. The Short Sunderland was 85 ft long by 112 wingspan. The B-26 was 58 long by 71 wingspan, the early models had a 65 ft wingspan.


----------



## norab (Sep 15, 2011)

question Which B-26 the Martin or Douglas (AKA known as A-26)


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 15, 2011)

I assumed it's about the Martin. The Douglas A-26 didn't appear till late in the war, and was called the A-26. It didn't take on the B-26 nomenclature until after WW2.


----------



## Coors9 (Sep 15, 2011)

I stood by a B-26, it's a big bird just the same. She sits higher than the 25 I think, maybe that makes the difference.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 15, 2011)

renrich said:


> . I believe that Lyndon Johnson received a medal for a mission flown in a B26 around New Guinea..


if whay Ive read is correct the mission for which he was awarded Silver Star the aircraft he was on turned back because of mechanical problems before getting to target ,


----------



## davparlr (Sep 15, 2011)

It seems most of the problems with the B-26 was typical of new aircraft and fuel. The real problem was that the aircraft was more advanced for the training. High wing loading and high speeds soon became quite common and quite safe, but when the B-26 came out, the AAF was not familiar with training techniques. To me the most impressive mission the B-26 flew was at Midway, where four took off unescorted, penetrated an alert fighter cover, shot down one fighter, two were lost, one, I believe actually struck a carrier before crashing, one flew down the flight deck of the Akagi, I believe, strafing the Japanese crew. Torpedoes were released, but no results. There may have hits but none exploded (the Japanese recorded no strikes). Two made it back, one crash landing but the crew made it. This was actually quite impressive considering the record of the Navy torpedo planes, even the TBFs. If there had been more B-26s with "good" torpedoes, the Japanese could easily lost its first carrier. The Japanese pilots said the B-26s were "blazing fast" and difficult to shoot down. It is also too bad the AF did not think ahead for an antishipping mission and designed the B-26 for carrying two torpedoes internally. They would have been even faster. Also, since they were capable of over flying the carriers, skip bombing would have been effective but would have to wait to a later date to be developed.

When I started working, one of my leads had been a B-26 pilot in the war. I never talked to him about it. Another missed opportunity. Crazy pilot though, crashed once and survived, drug his Navion tail down the runway because he took off with the wrong fuel tank selected but reacted fast enough to switch tanks. Later he killed himself and another man commuting when he ran into a mountain. FAA had been trying to pull his licenses for awhile for breaking minimums.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 16, 2011)

There is a trend worth noting. All the allied bombers that enjoyed the lowest loss rates were those that could fly fastest. Speed was the antidote to loss rates.

The Maryland was the fastest bomber in the Armee d'Air and recorded the lowest loss rate. the A-20 was the fastest bomber in the VVS inventory and enjoyed the lowest loss rate. The Ju88 was one of the fastest bombers in the LW (until late in the war) and enjoyed the lowest loss rate. Later, the Germans used the Ar 234 which suffered a very low loss rate. The British used the Mosquito...lowest loss rate. The Japanese used the Grace, and the unarmed Dinah, both of which enjoyed low attrition rates. 

There is a pattern here....speed saves lives. even if the fighters were faster, it takes them longer to catch a retreating bomber, they have to expend more fuel per mile to keep up or catch up, and the target is that much harder to hit. Whilst large scale raids at high speed was not possible, raids up to about group strength at full speed were certainly feasible. 

Dont know how the B-26 fits in with all of this, but it was judged "hot" when first deployed to the SWPA are in early '42


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 16, 2011)

While the B-26 was considered 'HOT' it speed advantage may not have been that great. Numbers are from Joe Baugher's site. 

B-25----322mph at 15,000ft
B-25A---315mph at 15,000ft
B-25B---300mph at 15,000ft
B-25C---284mph at 15,000ft
B-25G---280mph at 15,000ft
B-25H---275mph at 15,000ft
B-25J---275m[h at 15,000ft

B-26----315mph at 15,000ft
B-26A---313mph at 15,000ft
B-26B---282mph at 15,000ft
B-26C---282mph at 15,000ft
B-26F---275mph at 15,000ft
B-26G---274mph at 15,000ft
'' '' ---283mph at 5,000ft.

Now maybe the B-26 was a lot faster low down or something but I am not seeing a big difference in the speeds for the most common versions. at least not enough to make a big difference.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 16, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> While the B-26 was considered 'HOT' it speed advantage may not have been that great. Numbers are from Joe Baugher's site.
> 
> B-25----322mph at 15,000ft
> B-25A---315mph at 15,000ft
> ...


 Yes, I noticed that also, yet it has a well accepted reputation for being fast. Tis a puzzlement.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 16, 2011)

Maybe the difference is at sea level or near to it? The Lockheed Ventura had a Good reputation in the Pacific and was supposed to get around 300mph down low. (with small propellers


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 16, 2011)

The B26 recieved its bad rep during training of new crews , Gen Doolittle said the blame had to be placed on bad maintainence and poor training of the aircrew. the training base in Tampa had a saying of "One a Day in Tampa Bay" in ref to the crashes that occured there on the B26


----------



## davparlr (Sep 16, 2011)

The problems do not seem unusual. Nose wheel collapse due to improper balance on early units and some poor heat treatment a bit later, electrical propeller problems due to maintenance draining batteries, and engine failure due to fuel additives affecting rubber. I think the real bad rep was just the crews were not adequately trained for high wing load, fast landing aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2011)

I'd like to know more references for these "maintenance" problems. Everything I've seen about B-26 accidents center around aircrew operation and training. Things like improper balance and poor heat treatment of parts center around engineering and manufacturing problems. Fuel additives are added at the direction of maintenance officers. Ground crews draining batteries could happen on any aircraft even in todays world. I think the situation with the B-26 was a matter of aircrew training especially on twin engine aircraft.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 16, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Maybe the difference is at sea level or near to it? The Lockheed Ventura had a Good reputation in the Pacific and was supposed to get around 300mph down low. (with small propellers



This would certainly be a problem for the Zero which was quite slow a sea level. Some test show 277 mph at SL, 299 mph at 5k, for the -11, and 292 mph at SL for the later -21.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 16, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'd like to know more references for these "maintenance" problems. Everything I've seen about B-26 accidents center around aircrew operation and training. Things like improper balance and poor heat treatment of parts center around engineering and manufacturing problems. Fuel additives are added at the direction of maintenance officers. Ground crews draining batteries could happen on any aircraft even in todays world. I think the situation with the B-26 was a matter of aircrew training especially on twin engine aircraft.



I agree with your statement. This was the intention of my post, it must have come across flawed.


----------



## davebender (Sep 16, 2011)

I'd say that's the answer. 

B17 and B24 heavy bomber produced concurrently.
B25 and B26 medium bomber produced concurrently.
A20 light bomber. The U.S. Army Air Corps didn't really believe in light bombers. Hence only one model.
P39 and P40 fighter produced concurrently.
P-38, P-47 and P-51 long range fighter aircraft produced concurrently during 1943 to 1945.
Even the B29 super heavy bomber program was backed up by the B32 bomber program.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2011)

davparlr said:


> I agree with your statement. This was the intention of my post, it must have come across flawed.


No worries


davebender said:


> I'd say that's the answer.
> 
> B17 and B24 heavy bomber produced concurrently.
> B25 and B26 medium bomber produced concurrently.
> ...


Agree...


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 16, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'd like to know more references for these "maintenance" problems. Everything I've seen about B-26 accidents center around aircrew operation and training. Things like improper balance and poor heat treatment of parts center around engineering and manufacturing problems. Fuel additives are added at the direction of maintenance officers. Ground crews draining batteries could happen on any aircraft even in todays world. I think the situation with the B-26 was a matter of aircrew training especially on twin engine aircraft.


letter dated 8 sept 42 by Doolitle to Director of Military Requirements
para 1 item c
``At a time when maintainence should be superior it is poor this due largely to the rush of preparing these aircraft for overseas.

The air safety board endorsed Doolittles report 
and this is from that
``....the accidents were due to three major causes 
1) Inexpeirence of pilots
2)Inesperience of maintainence mechanics
3)Overloading beyond the weight when bomber is a twin engine aircraft could fly on one engine`


These quotes are ftom the book 
The Martin B26 Bomber by j.k. Havenor


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 16, 2011)

As another point, what is the real savings in having one standard model if you are building these things by the thousands in brand new factories?

The scale the USAAF operated on was enormous. They built 400 fewer B-25s than the Germans built Do 17s, Do 217s and He 111 put together. 

9,984 B-25s is just about equal to ALL the twin engined planes used By the Japanese army. around a dozen different types. The US could afford (and not just money) to use more than one type of aircraft in a single category without messing up production or supply too much.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 16, 2011)

The B26 had its production stopped in the war due to a redesign of the wing for safety. This incidentally, made it the safest combat aircraft of the war.

The B26's in the PTO never achieved much, as compared to the B25. And some B26 units in the MTO were replaced by B25's.

As such, I believe the B25 to be superior. The AAF believed in the B25 and not the other.

Heres an interesting document from WW2 that indicates the general unhappiness with the B26 during the early part of the war.

http://www.b-26mhs.org/archives/reports/b26_project_outline.pdf


----------



## davparlr (Sep 17, 2011)

syscom3 said:


> The B26 had its production stopped in the war due to a redesign of the wing for safety. This incidentally, made it the safest combat aircraft of the war.



As posted earlier, problems with the B-26 did not seem systemic, but rather most in procedures and training. Primary problem with this aircraft was not necessarily safety of the design but the lack of adequate training of the crew. High wing loading was regarded as a problem from the start and considered inadequate, creating an inherent distrust in the aircraft. This attitude would quickly disappear in less than ten years. The B-47, flying about eight years after the B-26, had twice the wing loading of the B-26.



> The B26's in the PTO never achieved much, as compared to the B25.



The additional range of the B-25 was a significant advantage in the PTO.



> As such, I believe the B25 to be superior. The AAF believed in the B25 and not the other.



It appears that the AAF was losing interest in the medium bomber as a concept, not just the B-26, with the higher performing A-20/26s gaining favoritism. After the war the B-25 seems quickly to have gone into training programs and didn't seem to participate in the Korean war, unlike the A-26. During WWII however, both aircraft proved to be potent weapons.



> Heres an interesting document from WW2 that indicates the general unhappiness with the B26 during the early part of the war.
> http://www.b-26mhs.org/archives/reports/b26_project_outline.pdf


 
Again, nothing here to indicated significant problems with the aircraft other than processes and procedures, and maintenance and crew training.


----------



## Maxrobot1 (Sep 18, 2011)

I recall reading that the decision to keep B-26s in the European theater was based on the British bases with hard runways. The B-26 had less clearance between prop tip and ground than the B-25 so the B-25 could operate out of less than perfect field conditions.
Maintenance on British airfields was better too. Of course when the 9th AF moved to the continent things got a little rustic.
I wish I could find it but I read years ago that a German fighter pilot in an interview said that they were "afraid" of the B-26s. I know that very early on the Germans had a captured B-26 that crashed on an Island off of Holland. the plane was on a ferry flight and had all the manuals and the Norden sight too. It was some time before the Germans could fly it because they couldn't get undamaged props. During that time they examinations showed how tecnologically advanced it was.
Maybe the Germans just didn't want to fly so low as to be in their own flak.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeGazdik (Oct 1, 2011)

I would have never believed the speeds being nearly the same on these two aircraft. I think maybe the telling difference is the twin tails of the Mitchell giving the pilot better control, especially with 1 engine out.


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 19, 2012)

The Army Air Corps actually did have more than 1 light (attack) bomber, just one dual engine model. The Army operated the A-24 (their version of the Douglas Dauntless), the A-25 shrike(the Army's Curtiss Helldiver), and The A-31 Vultee Vengeance (over 1,000 produced). Of course,the Army also operated the A-36 Mustang/Apache.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 19, 2012)

pbfoot said:


> The B26 recieved its bad rep during training of new crews , Gen Doolittle said the blame had to be placed on bad maintainence and poor training of the aircrew. the training base in Tampa had a saying of "One a Day in Tampa Bay" in ref to the crashes that occured there on the B26



Before my father "escaped" into Mustangs, he was an a/c in 478BS/336BG which was training to take the B-26 to the ETO. They were at McDill during the "one a day in Tampa Bay" period. He liked the airplane but said you had to fly it on landing all the way down and keep up the speed ~ 130+kts over the fence. When the war was over in Eurpoe he was IP for the many fighter pilots that wanted T/E time and there were two B-26's and one A-26 and one A-20K at Steeple Morden, then Gablingen.

A lot of his flight time when he was at the Pentagon was B-25/T-33 out of Andrews AFB. He said the B-25 really didn't have any vices but thought he may have preferred the B-26 Marauder in combat in ETO. He also flew A-26s in Korea and loved it the most by far.

From a combat perspective the 8th BC had four medium bomb groups before all went to 9th in October 1943 - all B-26B's. They hit marshalling yards, airfields, rail repair/fabrication shops, ports, POL depots, bridges and some industrial centers. It was believed to be tougher and faster with same bomb load.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Sep 22, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> While the B-26 was considered 'HOT' it speed advantage may not have been that great. Numbers are from Joe Baugher's site.
> 
> B-25----322mph at 15,000ft
> B-25A---315mph at 15,000ft
> ...



The early short-wing B-26B's top speed was 305 MPH.

You can disregard the B-25 and B-25A. Neither of these were used in combat. The only B-25Bs that saw action were the ones launched from the _Hornet_. The first Mitchells to go into action were B-25Cs, which attacked the Japanese base at Gasmata, New Britain, on 6 April, 1942. Coincidently, that was the first day of action for the B-26, which due to their longer range were able to bomb Rabaul.
What, the B-26 had longer range? Yep. The early B-25Cs had only 670 US gallons internal. The B-26 had 962 US gallons internal, plus provisions for a 250 gallon bomb bay tank. Even with the thirstier R-2800, the B-26 had longer legs, and could carry more bombs.
Eventually, the B-25C/D had additional tanks added in the wings, provisions for bomb bay tanks, and external hardpoints for bombs, one thing that could not be added to the B-26 wing. This gave the later B-25s the edge in range. This coupled with the better short field performance of the B-25 made it the best choice for the Pacific. One thing that soured the Pacific commanders on the B-26 was that it could not use the short island runways, limiting its operating options. The commanders wanted B-26s at Guadalcanal as soon as the airfield was captured, but it wasn't until November that the first B-26Bs could use the field.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 23, 2016)

Greg Boeser said:


> The early short-wing B-26B's top speed was 305 MPH.
> 
> You can disregard the B-25 and B-25A. Neither of these were used in combat. The only B-25Bs that saw action were the ones launched from the _Hornet_. The first Mitchells to go into action were B-25Cs, which attacked the Japanese base at Gasmata, New Britain, on 6 April, 1942. Coincidently, that was the first day of action for the B-26, which due to their longer range were able to bomb Rabaul.
> What, the B-26 had longer range? Yep. The early B-25Cs had only 670 US gallons internal. The B-26 had 962 US gallons internal, plus provisions for a 250 gallon bomb bay tank. Even with the thirstier R-2800, the B-26 had longer legs, and could carry more bombs.
> Eventually, the B-25C/D had additional tanks added in the wings, provisions for bomb bay tanks, and external hardpoints for bombs, one thing that could not be added to the B-26 wing. This gave the later B-25s the edge in range. This coupled with the better short field performance of the B-25 made it the best choice for the Pacific. One thing that soured the Pacific commanders on the B-26 was that it could not use the short island runways, limiting its operating options. The commanders wanted B-26s at Guadalcanal as soon as the airfield was captured, but it wasn't until November that the first B-26Bs could use the field.


I have never seen a picture of a B25 carrying external bombs or tanks.

What made the B25 perfect for Pacific operations was its ability to act as a strafer. Something the B26 could not do.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2016)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Sep 23, 2016)

syscom3 said:


> I have never seen a picture of a B25 carrying external bombs or tanks.
> 
> What made the B25 perfect for Pacific operations was its ability to act as a strafer. Something the B26 could not do.



Why not?


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 23, 2016)

spicmart said:


> Why not?


The B26 nose was to small. It could only accomodate a single machine gun.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2016)

spicmart said:


> Why not?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2016)

I don't know if they ever tried a solid nose B-26. 
Or if there was a problem with the handling at low altitude/high speed. You want a pretty stable aircraft for ground strafing that responds quickly to the controls. 
With five fixed .50 cal guns already one would think they could have fitted 3-5 more fairly easily if they did away with the bombardier.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 23, 2016)

syscom3 said:


> I have never seen a picture of a B25 carrying external bombs or tanks.


I don't think I have seen/heard of external ordnance on the B-25 in the PTO, however, over North Africa, they did.

Here's a B-25C with bombs on the external racks, from the 12th BG, North Africa, 1943

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Sep 23, 2016)




----------



## spicmart (Sep 23, 2016)

A modified nose section could have made more room for 50s. Should not be too difficult, maybe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2016)

spicmart said:


> A modified nose section could have made more room for 50s. Should not be too difficult, maybe.


Not as easy as it sounds. Although the B-26 carried side blisters, one would have to examine how the nose is assembled to the rest of the aircraft and what stresses the aircraft will be under when firing the weapons. After B-25s were being field modified to carry several 50s in the nose, a stress analysis was completed to ensure the modification wasn't going to destroy the aircraft. From photos I've seen the B-26's forward fuselage was assembled in one unit so you just couldn't change the nose without major redesign and retooling

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 23, 2016)

spicmart said:


> A modified nose section could have made more room for 50s. Should not be too difficult, maybe.


Why?
They already had the A-20, B-25 and A-26...some of which had up to 14 forward firing .50 MGs.

They did install cheek pods on the B-26, and a short run of the B-26B-10 had wing-mounted MGs installed in addition to the cheek pods, giving them at least 8 fixed forward .50 MGs for strafing. The cheek pods mounted on the B-26 were set much further back than typical installations on the other types.

There were also a B-26B (42-43319) "Wild Willie II" that had two .50 MGs mounted to either side of the fuselage interior, the barrels protruding through openings in the nose glazing, but lacked cheek pods.

And there was one B-26B (41-31672) "Pistol Packin' Mama" that was tested with a combination of two 37mm cannon and two .50 MG mounted in a solid nose along with twin .50 cheek pods.

These last two I mentioned were tested in Baltimore only and none ever saw combat to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2016)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2016)

I think the B-25 was a better choice for this type of modification


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 23, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think the B-25 was a better choice for this type of modification


Agreed...and I always wondered if the cheek packs on the B-26 were set back like that to keep from altering the CoG any more than they had to.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Sep 23, 2016)

It was tried. Here is a shot of a 73rd BS B-26 field modified with twin .50s and twin 20mms in the nose in The Aleutians, October 28, 1942.




Aleutian based Marauders flew mostly torpedo and masthead bombing missions against Japanese shipping around Attu and Kiska. Captain John Pletcher flew this plane in an attack that sank the _Cheribon Maru_ on 26 November 1942. I haven't been able to pinpoint the exact date this modification was made, but may have been in response to losses suffered in mid October in attacks on transports and destroyers that cost the unit two Marauders.

The first package guns were retrofitted to Pacific based B-26Bs of 70th Bomb Squadron in October 1942. Like the B-26s assigned to the Aleutians, they were tasked with low level torpedo and skip or masthead bombing. Possibly first used during the attack on beached Japanese transports at Guadalcanal on November 15, 1942. They found that the mountings had a tendency to break and spray the nose compartment with bullets. After a couple incidents they were removed. Captain John Sharp, 70th BS is credited with the shoot down of an H6K flying boat while flying a B-26B fitted with a pair of .50s in January 1943. 

No effort was made to convert 22nd BG B-26s to strafers. Nor were the B-25s later assigned to the unit. The decision to phase out B-26s in the Pacific was made long before B-25 strafers were imagined, the 69th and 70th BS being the last to deploy with Marauders, in mid-1942. After June 1942, all B-26 production was slated for the MTO and ETO. In the MTO low level ops by B-26s and B-25s was found to be too costly and they reverted to conventional medium level bombing. It took only two missions over Europe to convince the 8th AF that low level ops were not worth it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2016)

There could very well have been CG problems with the B-26. And/or landing gear problems if too much weight was added to the nose even if the plane flew OK.

Just a wild guess on the B-25 but the under wing bombs _might _be in conflict with filling the outer wing tanks? As in you could use one or the other but not both? Added drag of external bombs and restricting fuel load might make for real short range?


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 23, 2016)

The 12th BG was operating from various fields there in North Africa ('42 - '43) to support British and Allied forces, so they didn't have the need for long range during those capaigns.


----------



## spicmart (Sep 24, 2016)

I just saw that I gave some negative ratings for some posts. That was not my intention, wasn't aware of it. Actually it happened by accident as obviously gave some ratings without knowing what they mean e.g. bacon. And as I mostly use my cell right now to write posts here it might well be possible that I pushed the wrong button. So sorry for that.
I have deleted them.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Sep 24, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Agreed...and I always wondered if the cheek packs on the B-26 were set back like that to keep from altering the CoG any more than they had to.


It probably had more to do with the shape of the fuselage. The teardrop shape of the B-26 meant that the widest part was the bomb bay/wing root. As mentioned earlier, the nose was pretty cramped, but there was plenty of room for internal ammo storage in the navigator's compartment.


----------

