syscom3
Pacific Historian
Correct.
A-20 vs. Beaufighter
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Correct.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Yes
But it didnt. In fact, it became legendary in its low level bombing role.
Since it did its first test flights with bombs. Ive seen 9th AF pics of them carrying underwing 500 pounders.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
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
Pacific Historian
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.
- Thread starter
- #65
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
Major General
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.
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
Major General
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.
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
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
1st Lieutenant
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.
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.
Last edited:
syscom3
Pacific Historian
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
Pacific Historian
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
1st Lieutenant
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
Pacific Historian
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
1st Lieutenant
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
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 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.
I agree.
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
Major General
They did operate B-24s, B-25s and Ventura's.
