A-20 vs. Beaufighter

[davparlr]

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

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

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

 

[Glider]

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

 

[JoeB]

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

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

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

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

Joe

 

[davparlr]

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

 

[parsifal]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[davparlr]

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

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