A-20 vs. Beaufighter

[Waynos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[renrich]

Dav, good points!

 

[JoeB]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Glider]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?