Allied Bombers and Fighter Bombers in 1942:, North Africa, China, Burma, Pacific, Aleutians (2 Viewers)

[Steamed_Banana]

Looks like the first use of P-40s as bombers in North Africa was on 16 May in 1942, six Kittyhawk I (P-40D) of 112 Sqn to attack Timimi each with a single 500 lb bomb. They did not lose any aircraft in this strike though other British units lost 8 that day (5 Kittyhawks, 1 Tomahawk, and 2 Hurricanes from multiple different squadrons). 112 Sqn did another raid on the 18th and lost 2 (one shot down by flak, one hitting it's prop on the ground) plus one crash-landed back at base, and another damaged.

This photograph is a 112 Sqn Kittyhawk I (P-40D) GA-Y. AK772 "London Pride", from Libya, before May 30 1942 as this aircraft was lost on that date near Bir Hakeim. I believe that is a British 250 lb bomb visible.

450 Sqn RAF pilot with 500 lb bomb on Kittyhawk.

Field modified 450 RAAF Kittyhawk with two 250 lb bombs

"Kittybombers" played a significant role at Gazala on Jun 6, attacking German armor with 500 lb and 250 lb bombs with 112, 250, and 260 RAF and 3 RAAF involved. Original armament reported was two to six 250 lb bombs, or one 500 and two 250 lb bombs. By 2nd El Alamein November 1942 450 Sqn RAAF Kittyhawks were routinely carrying two or three 500 lb bombs. So by this point, up to 1,500 lbs.

A pilot flying a P-40F from the US 324th FG sank the Italian destroyer Leone Pancaldo off of Cape Bon on 29 April 1943, using 1,000 lb bombs.

First strike with P-40s in New Guinea was by 9 or 10 Kittyhawk Ia (P-40E) of 75 RAAF sqn in New Guinea on March 22, 1942, an airstrike on Lae, credited with destroying 12 aircraft on the ground and 2 in the air. 2 Kittyhawks were lost on the raid. I can't be sure though they were carrying any bombs, this may have just been strafing.

This is New Guinea, I'm not sure what size bombs those are, either 300 lb or 500 lb.

76 Sqn RAAF led a strike in New Guinea with P-40s carrying 300 lb bombs against Gona on 22 July 1942. After that clearly bombing was routine, with ever increasing loads. As US 500 and 1,000 lb bombs became available they started using those, though I don't know the exact date. Both against ground targets and a few times against shipping.

On 7 May 1942 AVG P-40Es led by "Tex" Hill led raids on the Salween river gorge, armorers having modified the planes to carry Soviet made 570 lb bombs. 23rd Fighter Group modified P-40s to carry US made 1,000 lb bombs from July 1942.

Standard bomb load for the Blenheim IV at this time was four 250 lb bombs, for a total of 1,000 lbs.

We will compare performance like range, cruising speed, max speed etc. later. I'm out of time alas.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Some background for those who discover this topic after it becomes history and for those skipping the Steamed Banana messages to await the replies. For those familiar with things search for &&& or go to about half way for the new stuff.

This is a spill over from Regarding the true combat performance of the P-38 (and other advanced US fighters) in the PTO from 1942-44 starting page 7.

Geoffrey Sinclair message 130
"As built the P-40C was the first to have an under fuselage rack, but not the RAF Tomahawk II, the P-40D had provision for wing racks for 40 pound bombs, a capacity that stayed through to the M model. In the quest for performance the March 1943 P-40N-1 dropped the wing racks, 2 machine guns, some internal fuel capacity etc. then the May 1943 N-5 went the other way restoring the guns etc. while introducing wing racks apparently initially rated to 100lb then 250lb. Given the US system once there was a rack it could carry US bombs or fuel and easy enough to fit British bombs, though apparently the P-40C model was only rated to carry under fuselage fuel. The N-5 introduced the 27 inch wheels, which stayed until the N-40 went back to 30 inch wheels, the smaller wheels had problems with increased weights. The N-20 had a bomb sight added. Given the ranges involved in the desert fighting, P-40 performance issues and drop tank supply it seems a lot of RAF Kittyhawks had the under fuselage rack removed until they started carrying bombs."

Steamed_Banana message 122
"Kittyhawks were carrying 250 or 500 lbs bomb initially on the centerline, and that went up to 1,000 (one 500 in the centerline and two 250 lb on the wings) and then 1,500 (three 500 lbs), even 2,000 lbs (two 1,000 lb or one 1,000 and two 500 lb) for short flights, and they could 'dive bomb' at a fairly high angle and with a reasonable degree of accuracy. This was figured out 'in the field', "

Geoffrey Sinclair message 130
"As noted above beyond 500 pounds arrives in mid 1943 unless you count creative uses of the under fuselage rack (6x250 pound anyone?). In March 1942 112 Squadron with Kittyhawk IA/P-40E-1 started experimenting with bombs, by May the squadron was doing bombing operations training, first mission on 16 May."

Steamed_Banana message 122
"Blenheim IV carried a 1,200 lb bomb load max - often less- and could only do level bombing and had marginal strafing ability. Blenheim cruising speed was less than 180 mph - some reports say closer to 120 mph. Kittyhawk cruising speed was around 240-300 mph which means get to targets much more quickly, get in and out of AAA and enemy fighter zone much more quickly etc.)."

Geoffrey Sinclair message 130
"The RAF performance charts list the Blenheim as having a maximum bomb load of 1,000 pounds, the mark I top speed as 265 mph and range as 678 miles at 230 mph with 1,000 pounds of bombs, the mark IV top speed as 266 mph and range as 1,169 miles at 225 mph with 1,000 pounds of bombs, at economic cruise of 170 mph with 1,000 pounds of bombs range becomes 1,457 miles. Looking at the Bomber Command raid reports no mention of 1,200 pound loads, while the nominal 1,000 pound of bombs Fairey Battles used their wing racks for 1,500 pound loads. The early Tomahawk top speed is reported as 345 mph, no capacity for bombs, range at 278 mph with 85 gallons of fuel 485 miles, with 107 gallons 615 miles, at 185 mph with 107 gallons 800 miles.

So when did Blenheims carry 1,200 pound loads, what does often and much less mean, after all P-40 ended up rated at 1,500 pounds or more but often, in fact usually, carried much less. Also compare likes, either economic or fast cruise speeds."

Steamed_Banana message 137
"Geoffrey's numbers for P-40 bomb load are laughable. The Hawk 87 / Kittyhawk types were routinely carrying multiple 250, 300, and 500 lb bombs and (when available) 1,000 lb bombs in the Med, in the South Pacific, in China, and in Burma from early 1942. As I noted previously, the actual limits of capacity were figured out at the squadron level, in the field, partly because they were so desperate in this very same units to stop escorting Blenheims, which they considered extremely hazardous due to the slow speed they had to maintain. I'm not even going to bother to debate that. It's easy to find this out from any source which includes this type of plane as the ordinance is mentioned in the mission descriptions and is often literally shown in photos."

Geoffrey Sinclair message 140
Good to know but so far they are the only figures provided with evidence. Takoradi received its first P-40E meant for the AVG week ending 20 February 1942 and managed to fly 4 out in the next week. So which units in the theatre were dropping bombs in early 1942? The US had P-40E in Australia once they erected the 18 with the Pensacola convoy which arrived on 22 December 1941, further shipments followed but many were exported to South East Asia, the Australians received their first Kittyhawk mid March. So when did they start dropping bombs? The first fighter bomber sortie in the Middle East is documented as 16 May 1942.

Steamed_Banana message 137
"So what if the Blenheim carried 1,000 or 1,200 or 1,350 lbs bombs? It carried less bombs than a Kittyhawk, was much slower, had shorter range, and was vastly more vulnerable to both enemy fighters and enemy flak."

Geoffrey Sinclair message 140
It matters to people who want to know what happened as the responses here indicate. From above Blenheim IV range as 1,169 miles at 225 mph with 1,000 pounds of bombs, at economic cruise of 170 mph with 1,000 pounds of bombs range becomes 1,457 miles. So list the Kittyhawk missions carrying over 1,000 pounds of bombs in 1942, while having greater than Blenheim range. Or one or the other.

Steamed_Banana message 142
"Bask in your confidence in this regard, but I don't think it necessarily means anything. I'm not under any obligation to engage with anybody, and generally speaking, one can post tons of numbers and statistics and still not be misleading or missing important bits. Blenheims were going on missions and routinely losing 25-50% of their force, "

Geoffrey Sinclair message 145
The fun thing about this is the way the RAF command is seriously bad, to keep doing missions with these sorts of losses, but blindingly good because of their Kittyhawk use.

What does routinely mean? Which theatres, which times? There are Blenheim raids with 100% casualties starting in April 1940, the Bomber Command figures have been posted, double the day losses to around 10% if using attacking sorties, it was hard to bomb Germany by day in 1940 but they kept trying. Provide the evidence of routine 25 to 50% loss raids.

Steamed_Banana message 147
"I don't want to be rude to you mate but I don't see getting into the weeds of this discussion as potentially fruitful in any way. Do you suspect you might change your mind in the face of evidence? I don't think it's likely. You wear an agenda on your sleeve and I don't see acceptance of anything which mitigates against it landing softly, no matter how categorical.

This particular thing we are debating (Kittyhawk vs Blenheim effectiveness / capabilities and survival rates as a bomber, and how quickly the Kittyhawk started being used for bombing missions, as well as how many and what type of bombs they carried) is a fairly well known topic, one which has been discussed before many times, I don't think it's controversial and it's covered in numerous books that I know most the regular posters to this forum have in their libraries.

If I have time later I'll start another thread and post some data on when the Kittyhawk started being used to drop larger bombs in each of several different Theaters (China, Burma, South Pacific, Alaska, Middle East, and Russia, which was all in 1942), but I'm not really interested in debating it here and now in this thread, because I know if I do it's just going to get murky and very long winded, especially since you give a lot of obvious signs that you are not really trying to have a discussion. So you'll have to forgive me I'm opting out of that for now."

Steamed_Banana message 153
"I'll start another one about "Kittyhawks and Blenheims", no problem You don't seem to like it when the books do come open in our interactions so far, but who knows?"

Geoffrey Sinclair message 155
When it comes to bomber losses there is Bomber Losses in the Middle East and Mediterranean Volume 1 1939 to 1942, by David Gunby and Pelham Temple. Meant to include aircraft lost on ferry flights to the theatre as well as all causes losses, pages 17 to 36 the 1940 war losses, pages 37 to 114 for 1941, pages 116 to 211 for 1942. The most common way for a formation to take multiple losses was an anti shipping strike.

A quick leaf through for multiple losses on the one raid, 1941, Western Desert unless mentioned otherwise, 4 or more
13 April, 6 out of 6 Blenheim, Greece, fighters
23 May, 5 out of unknown number Blenheim, fighters
27 May, 6 out of unknown number, Blenheim, Crete, none to enemy action
9 July, 4 out of 7 Blenheim, causes not given
12 September, 4 out of unknown number Blenheim anti shipping, flak
1/2 November, 5 out of unknown number Wellington, fog.
20 November, 5 out of 9 Maryland, army co-operation, fighters
22 November, 4 out of 6 Blenheim, fighters
10 December, 5 out of 6 Boston, fighters
12 December, 5 out of unknown number Maryland, fighters
20 December, 4 out of 12 Blenheim, fighters

In 1942,
4 February, 4 out of unknown number Blenheim, low cloud
16/17 August, 4 out of unknown number Wellington, none enemy action
13/14 September, 4 out of unknown number Wellington, probably none enemy action
4 December, 9 out of unknown number Blenheim (NW Africa), fighters

There are probably others, plus dropping the minimum loss to 3 will add more. Interesting that from pre Gazala battle daylight bomber losses to enemy action drop away, in the western desert anyway.

Steamed_Banana message 158
"But sure, I'll take the bait. I'm not sure what you think you know about me, but I do have the library everyone else has. None of this - about the Blenheim, the Kittyhawk, the Boston etc., is news. But we can plunge into all of it, like a clumsy Blenheim staggering through the clouds toward it's doom over an Axis base. ...

This is not a thread about a deep dive into the bomb load or survival rates of bombers in the DAF, which is the topic you seem to have chosen. I'm not obligated to dig into this with you, no matter how much you want me to. However, I will open that topic up for that discussion. You were already proven wrong by other people here about your cranky and pointlessly pedantic assertion of the Blenheim bomb load. I'll cover the rest of your statements in the new thread. But I'll do that when i have the time and feel like it.

Right now you are trying to derail this thread so that you can grandstand with one of your turgid missives which I doubt a lot of people actually read, since it's the same stuff every time with slightly different charts. You want to steer the discussion toward something you think you understand better, or a topic which just pleases you more to discuss because something about this one makes you nervous.

The problem is there have already been dozens of threads on this forum about the P-40, the Blenheim, the DAF, Burma, China, Malaya etc. Books covering the data you are trying to debate right now have been out since the 1960s and before. So this is not new information. That makes it less interesting and a lower priority for me. But sure "Geoffrey", we'll go there."

Usual format service resumed

By the way note how it does not matter what the Blenheim bomb load is, until it matters. Finland looks like it pushed the bomb load to around 2,205 pounds and routine might be around 1,323 pounds, or the maximum could be 1,764 pounds. The RAF seems to have stuck closely to 1,000 pounds, not surprising given the marginal performance in 1940/41. The RAF notes the fuel to fill the Blenheim I tanks came in at 2,085 pounds, the mark IV 3,439 pounds, in both cases 440 pounds was the fuel carried as part of the 50 minute allowance rule. From Performance Tables of British Service Aircraft, Air Publication 1746, dated August 1939 but data includes 1940/41 aircraft.

It seems clear enough you could add 500 to 1,000 pounds of bombs for shorter range missions, provided you could fit them into the bomb bay or use external racks.

&&& And so we arrive

Looks like the first use of P-40s as bombers in North Africa was on 16 May in 1942, six Kittyhawk I (P-40D) of 112 Sqn

Apart from being a repeat of information already provided the above is offered as proof of early 1942 Kittyhawk fighter bomber operations.

The 22 P-40D were accepted May and June 1941, P-40E acceptances began in June, Tomahawk IIB ended in July, Kittyhawk I/Hawk 87A started in August, the Kittyhawk were cash purchases and finished to RAF standards, apart from the first few they had 6 gun wings. In any case 112 squadron had Kittyhawk IA = P-40E-1.

For production figures, see USAF Material Command, Airplane and Glider Acceptances, Factory Deliveries, and Departures from US by Type Model and Country, Based on Contacts Active as of January 1940, Excluding Direct Navy, Navy Lend Lease and Commercial for period January 1940 to December 1942, Inclusive, amongst other reports.

"Kittybombers" played a significant role at Gazala on Jun 6, attacking German armor with 500 lb and 250 lb bombs with 112, 250, and 260 RAF and 3 RAAF involved. Original armament reported was two to six 250 lb bombs, or one 500 and two 250 lb bombs. By 2nd El Alamein November 1942 450 Sqn RAAF Kittyhawks were routinely carrying two or three 500 lb bombs. So by this point, up to 1,500 lbs.

So it should be no problem to provide evidence of these loads routinely carried.

The Australians have digitised the RAAF squadron records and made them readable on the National Archives site.

A9186 8 RAAF Unit History sheets (Form A50) [Operations Record Book - Forms A50 and A51] Number 3 Squadron Jul 25 - Aug 43 Barcode 1158595
Its bomb loads are part of Appendix A report, which is not part of the file.

A9186 135 Unit history of number 450 Squadron - February 1941 to August 1945 Barcode 1359188
450 squadron stops regularly reporting bombs dropped in July 1942, usually 1x250 or 500 pound, looking through the later reports when mentioned in October it is still 1 bomb per aircraft, for example 26 October 12x500 pound bombs by 12 aircraft, while another operation has 6 fitted with long range tanks for a patrol. 1 November 1 bomb per aircraft, 4 November 1x500 pound bomb each, 14 November all aircraft were carrying 500 pound bombs.

The British split the files into a) Summary and b) Record of Events, then offer up the files a month at a time, to be read though watermarks.

112 squadron seems to mention bomb loads in the summary, 27 May 1942, over 20 bombing sorties dropping 22x250 pound bombs, 28 May 30 sorties, 23x250 pound, 30 May 26 sorties 20x250 pound, 9 July saw 34 sorties 22x500 and 8x250 pound bombs, 16 July, 32 sorties, 23 bombs dropped, 28 August, 8 sorties, 8 bombs, 30 September, 12 aircraft, 11 bombs, 8 October 11 sorties, 11 bombs

250 squadron, much more verbose, and harder to read at times, quick skim, an example a month, 9 July, 6 sorties, cover and bomb, 4 bombs dropped, 10 July similar 6 sorties, 6 bombs, 1 August, 8 sorties, 8 bombs, September not a lot of bombing, 11 October each bomber 1x500 pound.

260 squadron, little information, first bombing sortie 14 June, US 500 pound demolition bombs, July, August, September, October few bombing operations.

When reported bombs dropped were 250 or 500 pound. If the aircraft were going beyond their rated bomb capacity there is a good chance the records would comment on it.

A9186 95 Operations record book (forms A50 & A51), 75 Squadron. [Unit history sheets] Barcode 1068620
New Guinea 22 March 1942, first offensive operation, strafing.

A9186 100 RAAF Unit History Sheets [Operation Record Book (Forms A50 and A51)] Number 76 Squadron March 1942 - October 1948 Barcode 1119413
New Guinea 22 July 1942, bombs jettisoned after encountering Japanese fighters, identified as Focke-Wulf, later decided to be the first Hap/Hamp encountered. Malaria problems required 75 and 76 squadrons be pulled out in October 1942

Standard bomb load for the Blenheim IV at this time was four 250 lb bombs, for a total of 1,000 lbs.

So where does the claimed 1,200 pounds fit in?

We will compare performance like range, cruising speed, max speed etc. later. I'm out of time alas.

Revisions required first, not sure many feel the alas bit.

Back to improvised format for a moment. From another topic, Fast bombers alternatives for 1939-40 Fast bombers alternatives for 1939-40

Steamed_Banana message 110
"The heavy bomb load of the B-24s was ultimately telling in the destruction of Axis airfields in early 1943, by which time the Allies had tons of fighters including Spitfire Mk IXs and some mk VIII (I think). But they (B-24s) took fairly heavy losses. "

So detail the losses, given the loss figures published do not support the fairly heavy losses claim.

Now data, this is the 12th Air Force 1944/45, Pilot Sorties (came within range of enemy), short tons, the 324th group had the 99th squadron until end June 1944. US Archives Record Group 18 Entry 7 Box 5938

ID	Month	Group(s)	Aircraft	Sorties	Bombs	av load	Note
1​	Jan-44​	12, 321, 340	B-25	1,759​	2,453.57​	2,789.73​
2​	Jan-44​	17, 319, 320	B-26	1,799​	2,591.08​	2,880.58​
3​	Jan-44​	47​	A-20	789​	560.30​	1,420.28​
4​	Jan-44​	27, 86	A-36	2,228​	886.50​	795.78​
5​	Jan-44​	33, 79, 324	P-40	5,615​	816.38​	290.79​
6​	Jan-44​	57​	P-40	166​	31.25​	376.51​	Non op 1 to 8 Jan
7​	Jan-44​	57​	P-47	358​	37.00​	206.70​	Non op 1 to 8 Jan
8​	Feb-44​	321, 340	B-25	1,079​	1,180.77​	2,188.64​
9​	Feb-44​	17, 319, 320	B-26	1,143​	1,116.02​	1,952.79​	12th Bomb Group departing
10​	Feb-44​	47​	A-20	684​	379.13​	1,108.57​
11​	Feb-44​	27​	A-36	646​	223.75​	692.72​	Mixture of A-36 and P-40 weeks ending 19 and 26 Feb, all P-40 from 27 Feb
12​	Feb-44​	86​	A-36	717​	277.25​	773.36​
13​	Feb-44​	33​	P-40	87​	3.50​	80.46​	Flew missions 1 and 2 Feb then departed
14​	Feb-44​	79, 324	P-40	3,707​	798.26​	430.68​
15​	Feb-44​	27​	P-40	142​	29.48​	415.21​	Mixture of A-36 and P-40 weeks ending 19 and 26 Feb, all P-40 27 Feb
16​	Feb-44​	86​	P-40	115​	25.75​	447.83​
17​	Feb-44​	57​	P-47	393​	80.50​	409.67​
18​	Mar-44​	321, 340	B-25	973​	1,582.89​	3,253.63​
19​	Mar-44​	310​	B-25	307​	367.05​	2,391.21​	Commenced operations 20 March
20​	Mar-44​	17, 319, 320	B-26	1,675​	2,619.28​	3,127.50​
21​	Mar-44​	47​	A-20	469​	280.88​	1,197.78​
22​	Mar-44​	86​	A-36	897​	299.25​	667.22​
23​	Mar-44​	27, 324	P-40	2,066​	713.36​	690.57​
24​	Mar-44​	79​	P-40	868​	249.75​	575.46​
25​	Mar-44​	57​	P-47	577​	174.50​	604.85​
26​	Mar-44​	79​	P-47	383​	0.00​	0.00​
27​	Apr-44​	310, 321, 340	B-25	1,875​	2,883.21​	3,075.42​
28​	Apr-44​	17, 319, 320	B-26	1,448​	2,221.25​	3,068.02​
29​	Apr-44​	47​	A-20	472​	362.04​	1,534.07​
30​	Apr-44​	86​	A-36	993​	437.25​	880.66​
31​	Apr-44​	27, 324	P-40	2,923​	1,278.87​	875.04​
32​	Apr-44​	79​	P-40	440​	108.40​	492.73​
33​	Apr-44​	79​	P-47	1,158​	347.25​	599.74​
34​	Apr-44​	57​	P-47	1,708​	564.25​	660.71​
35​	May-44​	310, 321, 340	B-25	3,171​	5,052.45​	3,186.66​
36​	May-44​	17, 319, 320	B-26	2,538​	3,964.23​	3,123.90​
37​	May-44​	47​	A-20	869​	698.50​	1,607.59​
38​	May-44​	86​	A-36	1,409​	648.18​	920.06​
39​	May-44​	86​	P-40	206​	85.17​	826.89​
40​	May-44​	324​	P-40	2,792​	982.54​	703.83​
41​	May-44​	27​	P-40	1,796​	514.09​	572.48​
42​	May-44​	27​	P-47	356​	162.00​	910.11​
43​	May-44​	57, 79	P-47	4,754​	3,072.30​	1,292.51​
44​	Jun-44​	310, 321, 340	B-25	2,603​	4,627.37​	3,555.41​
45​	Jun-44​	17, 319, 320	B-26	1,973​	3,309.00​	3,354.28​
46​	Jun-44​	47​	A-20	644​	470.23​	1,460.34​
47​	Jun-44​	86​	A-36	666​	277.60​	833.63​
48​	Jun-44​	86​	P-40	140​	34.87​	498.14​
49​	Jun-44​	324​	P-40	1,730​	477.59​	552.13​
50​	Jun-44​	27​	P-40	465​	90.11​	387.57​
51​	Jun-44​	27​	P-47	1,010​	638.25​	1,263.86​
52​	Jun-44​	57, 79	P-47	4,099​	2,292.27​	1,118.45​
53​	Jul-44​	310, 321, 340	B-25	2,376​	3,805.59​	3,203.36​
54​	Jul-44​	17, 319, 320	B-26	2,024​	3,031.00​	2,995.06​
55​	Jul-44​	47​	A-20	658​	598.44​	1,818.97​
56​	Jul-44​	86​	A-36	174​	73.00​	839.08​
57​	Jul-44​	86​	P-47	635​	276.22​	869.98​
58​	Jul-44​	324​	P-40	773​	356.83​	923.23​
59​	Jul-44​	27, 57, 79	P-47	4,088​	1,652.62​	808.52​
60​	Aug-44​	310, 321, 340	B-25	2,976​	4,574.00​	3,073.92​
61​	Aug-44​	17, 319, 320	B-26	2,464​	3,942.45​	3,200.04​
62​	Aug-44​	47​	A-20	783​	709.24​	1,811.60​
63​	Aug-44​	27, 57, 79, 86, 324	P-47	8,105​	2,516.09​	620.87​
64​	Sep-44​	310, 321, 340	B-25	2,636​	3,924.47​	2,977.59​
65​	Sep-44​	17, 319, 320	B-26	1,813​	2,337.22​	2,578.29​
66​	Sep-44​	47​	A-20	229​	237.68​	2,075.81​
67​	Sep-44​	27, 57, 79, 86, 324	P-47	3,955​	1,105.22​	558.90​
68​	Oct-44​	310, 321, 340	B-25	1,467​	2,020.79​	2,755.00​
69​	Oct-44​	17, 319, 320	B-26	1,284​	1,642.55​	2,558.49​
70​	Oct-44​	47​	A-20	314​	325.62​	2,074.01​
71​	Oct-44​	27, 57, 79, 86, 324	P-47	4,244​	1,860.24​	876.64​
72​	Nov-44​	310, 319, 321, 340	B-25	2,813​	3,951.88​	2,809.73​
73​	Nov-44​	17, 320	B-26	1,070​	1,537.91​	2,874.60​
74​	Nov-44​	47​	A-20	358​	350.71​	1,959.27​
75​	Nov-44​	27, 57, 79, 86, 324	P-47	6,394​	2,666.59​	834.09​
76​	Dec-44​	310, 319, 321, 340	B-25	2,510​	3,315.58​	2,641.90​
77​	Dec-44​	47​	A-20	569​	615.87​	2,164.75​
78​	Dec-44​	27, 57, 79, 86, 324	P-47	7,856​	3,334.83​	848.99​
79​	Jan-45​	310, 321, 340	B-25	2,023​	2,896.00​	2,863.07​
80​	Jan-45​	47​	A-20	607​	691.04​	2,276.90​
81​	Jan-45​	27, 57, 79, 86, 324	P-47	7,055​	3,423.83​	970.61​
82​	Feb-45​	310, 321, 340	B-25	2,841​	3,662​	2,577.97​	Bomb tonnages now reported in round numbers
83​	Feb-45​	47​	A-20	836​	962​	2,301.44​
84​	Feb-45​	47​	A-26	42​	72​	3,428.57​
85​	Feb-45​	57, 79, 324	P-47	4,857​	2,180​	897.67​
86​	Feb-45​	27, 86	P-47	1,356​	659​	971.98​	27th ceased operations 19 Feb, 86th 21 Feb
87​	Mar-45​	310, 321, 340	B-25	3,471​	5,358​	3,087.29​
88​	Mar-45​	47​	A-20	1,053​	1,178​	2,237.42​
89​	Mar-45​	47​	A-26	166​	282​	3,397.59​
90​	Mar-45​	57, 79, 324	P-47	6,805​	3,158​	928.14​
91​	Apr-45​	310, 321, 340	B-25	4,638​	6,510​	2,807.24​
92​	Apr-45​	47​	A-20	947​	1,105​	2,333.69​
93​	Apr-45​	47​	A-26	914​	1,517​	3,319.47​
94​	Apr-45​	57, 79, 324	P-47	8,630​	3,665​	849.36​

A very much first approximation, especially for the fighters, as not all pilot sorties attacked a target and not all of the fighters would not be carrying bombs. For the fighters think of it as the minimum later war bomb loads.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Haven't had time to really dive in yet, but these are some photos I found, and a very brief interview excerpt.

This is 1943, Kittyhawk I or III (not a IV) with a 500 lb bomb on the centerline

Caption on this says "North Africa, c. 1943. A P40 Kittyhawk of 450 Squadron RAAF, loaded with six 250 lb bombs."

CBI P-40 with 250 or 300 lb bomb on the wing and centerline 52 gallon(?) fuel tank. Could not find a date.

Six 250 lbs, I think it's a Kittyhawk IV, no date given

P-40 CBI with 1,000 lb

P-40 in China, centerline fuel tank and 6 'bazooka' rocket tubes on the wings. The Russians also put rockets on P-40s.

Kittyhawk IV, I think this is three 500 lb, probably 1944

Hard to see clearly but I think that is three 250 lb bombs, 1944 or 45

Excerpt interview with Brian Alexander Eaton (Vice Air Marshal) 3 Sqn RAAF veteran, interviewed by Edward Stokes 22 Nov ember 1990:

"I think it was very good. It could take an awful lot of punishment and still get you home. It was a very, very –. You had six .5s, could carry two 250-pounds – later two 500-pound bombs – and still later carried a thousand pound bomb and two 500- pound bombs. So almost like a light bomber. Oh, it was a very good aircraft.

Would it be possible to tell us the kind of typical sequence of a typical ground strafing attack, how it was set up, how you went in, how close you pushed the attack?

Well first of all you'd bomb from about 10,000 feet down to about 3,000 feet, then you'd pull up and see what was left, and then you'd get round, come in, come in low at speed and strafing. But the closer you got the more accurate you became, so the closer you got the more kills you got."

 

[yulzari]

The Blenheim in addition to the 1,000lb bomb bay load also fixed a Light Bomb Carrier to the lower rear fuselage behind the bomb bay. I have read of these still being used over Tunisia before the Blenheim was mercifully withdrawn.

An extract from the 112 Squadron song book of Kittyhawk days: "They say the Flying Fortress flies at forty thousand feet, but it only carries a teeny weeny bomb"………..

 

[MikeMeech]

Hi
I am attaching extracts from 'Shark Squadron Pilot' by Bert Horden, these included reference to bomb loads (including the invention of the twin bomb rack) and changes that had to be made to the Kittyhawk to allow heavier bomb loads (there are always compromises). The time period covers (late) North African and Italian operations. I am sure this question has been covered before on the Forum and I think I have put some of these extracts on before so I apologise for repeating the information:

Mike

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Outstanding. My original comments about this were based on accounts from similar memoirs but I hadn't time yet to go through these and pintpoint the exact entries. And yes I know these discussions were already had on here, which I mentioned repeatedly to Geoffrey but he claimed I was saying that to dodge the issue or something. Which is why I opened this thread. I take all responsibility for the regurgitation of previously discussed information, it is actually an interesting subject. I'm used to thinking about the history of the fighters but their role as fighter bombers, especially ones like the Kittyhawk that were so good at it, also mattered a great deal.

My only complaint is that the first couple of entries give month but not year, are these in 1942 or 1943?

Fascinating to me that they were doing things like replacing the steel wheels with aluminum already in the field. That was one of the permanent changes with the Kitty IV / P-40N that came later. I presume that was with Kittyhawk III? Replacing the battery with a lighter one is also super interesting.

Also a bit surprised that the artificial horizon and other cockpit instruments weighed enough to make a difference.

I think they also did something in the wing to change the light bomblet racks with something that could carry 500 lb (and / or two 250 lb) bombs, and this was done before the Kitty IV.

This to me, reinforces the pattern that I've been seeing where in several different Theaters, they were quite innovative and resourceful about quite significant field modifications like the ones described above.

I'd also say it's notable that they hit a bridge twice on the first strike. This was very hard to achieve with level bombers.

 

[MikeMeech]

Hi
Air Publication 3235 'Air Support' (Air Ministry 1955, but also reprinted by MLRS Books, 2008), mentions the fitting of Kittyhawks with bombs in 1942 on page 64, extract below:

Much useful information is also contained in Vic Flintham's two volume study 'Close Call - RAF Close Air Support in the Mediterranean'
You can also find Theatre and Thematic studies on the British Air Historical Branch website which may be of interest.
Mike

 

[MikeMeech]

My only complaint is that the first couple of entries give month but not year, are these in 1942 or 1943?

Fascinating to me that they were doing things like replacing the steel wheels with aluminum already in the field. That was one of the permanent changes with the Kitty IV / P-40N that came later. I presume that was with Kittyhawk III? Replacing the battery with a lighter one is also super interesting.

Also a bit surprised that the artificial horizon and other cockpit instruments weighed enough to make a difference.

I think they also did something in the wing to change the light bomblet racks with something that could carry 500 lb (and / or two 250 lb) bombs, and this was done before the Kitty IV.

This to me, reinforces the pattern that I've been seeing where in several different Theaters, they were quite innovative and resourceful about quite significant field modifications like the ones described above.

I'd also say it's notable that they hit a bridge twice on the first strike. This was very hard to achieve with level bombers.

Hi
He joined No. 112 Sqn., in 1943.
The aluminium wheels did have problems due to the aircraft weight as he mentions they "occasionally cracked". Also as in all aircraft the more weapon load carried range/endurance would be reduced.

Mike

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Hi
He joined No. 112 Sqn., in 1943.
The aluminium wheels did have problems due to the aircraft weight as he mentions they "occasionally cracked". Also as in all aircraft the more weapon load carried range/endurance would be reduced.

Mike

I wonder where they got the wheels, must have been from some other aircraft? Or a truck?

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

My original comments about this were based on accounts from similar memoirs but I hadn't time yet to go through these and pintpoint the exact entries.

Remarkable lifestyle, plenty of time to write many opinions including on how other people are wrong, no time to provide factual material.

And yes I know these discussions were already had on here, which I mentioned repeatedly to Geoffrey but he claimed I was saying that to dodge the issue or something.

This knowledge of discussions does not extend to providing references, just it is out there. With statements like the above to dodge the issues, like the Steamed_Banana claims of P-40 fighter bomber operations in "early 1942" and in many theaters, so far repeating the information on the first Western Desert operation in May 1942 and adding an AVG mission on 7 May. Then comes the Steamed-Banana claims of 1,000 or 1,500 pound bomb loads from just about the start of bombing sorties, considered early 1942, with the larger load routine by the end of the year in the Western Desert. The squadron records do not agree. The 12th Air Force figures give a guide to loads at a time the P-40N was widely available.

Which is why I opened this thread. I take all responsibility for the regurgitation of previously discussed information,

So where did the mostly undated or no P-40 version provided photographs come from? In any case it reads as people feel free to actually provide the information for Steamed_Banana to provide opinions on.

I wonder where they got the wheels, must have been from some other aircraft? Or a truck?

See the N-5 below.

Still waiting the evidence to back up the Steamed_Banana claim of fairly heavy B-24 losses in Africa. The USAAF disagrees.

P-40N = RAF Kittyhawk IV. The as built fighter bombers, the N-5 or later, which everyone agrees could carry large bomb loads. Earlier Kittyhawk up to the N left the factory with an under fuselage rack generally rated to 500 pounds but fuel carriage was initially emphasised, plus M-10 wing racks that were generally rated for a total of 6 x 40lb bombs, 3 per wing.

Francis Dean in America's Hundred Thousand, Useful Load includes internal and external Disposable loads. The early centre line rack installation for a 52 gallon tank came in at 54.1 pounds, including piping and sway braces. Wing bomb provisions 15.4 pounds. Nominal bomb load equals useful load figure minus pilot, oil, ammunition and fuel weights. You need to add it to gross weight for take off weight.

P-40E	P-40F	P-40K	P-40L	P-40M	P-40N-25
6,702​	7,089​	6,880​	6,840​	6,899​	6,717​	Basic Weight
700​	701​	700​	560​	700​	683​	Pilot, oil, ammunition
888​	888​	942​	720​	942​	954​	Internal fuel
8,290​	8,678​	8,522​	8,120​	8,541​	8,354​	Gross weight
2,221​	2,102​	2,155​	1,635​	2,155​	2,148​	Useful load
633​	513​	513​	355​	513​	511​	Nominal bomb load

Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers give the maximum take off weights as P-40E 9,200 pounds, F 9,350 pounds, K 10,000 pounds, L 8,900 pounds, M 8,900 pounds N 8,850 pounds.

According to the USAAF
P-40N-1, 400 built, starting in Mar-43, V-1710-89 engine, 4 guns, removal of wing bomb racks (for 40 pound bombs), internal fuel etc. many retrofitted to at least partial N-5 standard.
P-40N-5, 1,100 built, starting in May-43, 6 guns, wing racks for fuel tanks and bombs larger than 40 pound, 27 inch magnesium wheels
P-40N-10, 99 built, starting in Aug-43
P-40N-15, 377 built, starting in Aug-43
P-40N-20, 1,523 built, starting in Sep-43, to V-1710-99 engine, bomb sight fitted
P-40N-25, 500 built, starting in Feb-44
P-40N-30, 500 built, starting in Mar-44
P-40N-35, 500 built, starting in Jun-44
P-40N-40, 220 built, starting in Oct-44, deletion of camouflage, return to 30 inch wheels.

Ignoring Brazil, Canada, Netherlands (but see under Australia) and USSR.

The RAF/SAAF allocations, the SAAF drew from RAF stocks in the Middle East plus imported some into South Africa, starting with 6 P-40K-10 taken off the damaged Sheaf Crown.
56 P-40N-1 (7 lost at sea, meant for South Africa)
150 P-40N-5 (8 lost at sea, meant for South Africa)
50 P-40N-15
200 P-40N-20

first exports from US March 1943, last January 1944, last imports into Middle East March 1944, last into South Africa April 1944

"RAF" Kittyhawk IV users
112 sqn April to June 1944
250 sqn January 1944 to August 1945
450 sqn October 1943 to August 1945
3 (RAAF) sqn drawing from RAF stocks, around April to November 1944.

SAAF
2 sqn, Middle East Kittyhawk (no mark given) May 1942 to August 1943
4 sqn, Middle East Kittyhawk (no mark given) May 1942 to July 1943
5 sqn, Middle East Kittyhawk January 1943 to September 1944, mark IV from May 1944
10 sqn, Home Kittyhawk (no mark given) June 1942 to May/June 1943
11 sqn, Italy mark IV November 1944 to after May 1945.

RAAF Pacific, P-40N
75 sqn September 1943 to post war
76 sqn reporting P-40M in September 1944, P-40N in February 1945, Mustang in September 1945
77 sqn June 1944 to September 1944
78 sqn July 1943 to post war
80 sqn September 1943 to post war
82 sqn April 1944 to September 1945
84 sqn September 1943 to around June 1945
86 sqn May? 1944 to around July 1945
120 (Netherlands) sqn, December 1943 to post war

The RAAF received 78 N-1, 79 N-5, 31 N-15, 105 N-20, 29 N-25, 29 N-30, 80 N-35 and 122 N-40, exports from the US from April 1943 to December 1944, deliveries to RAAF from July 1943 to February 1945. The Netherlands had their own imports.

New Zealand,
33 P-40N-1, 51 P-40N-5, 69 P-40N-20, 20 P-40N-25. Which comes to 173. US says 175 exports from May 1943 to February 1944, imports into New Zealand from June 1943 to May 1944. No details on squadrons.

China was allocated around 18 P-40N-1, the rest were N-5 or later. As of June 1945 it was 321 deliveries for China in the US, resulting in 299 exports from June 1943 to June 1944.

In all the above allow for possible theatre transfers.

End of 1943, RAAF Chiefs of Staff reports, the P-40N-5 went from 7 to 9/16 wheel bolts, except the RAAF received a batch of them with 7/16 bolts in the 9/16 holes.

 

[Shortround6]

Official bomb loads often were not what some of the squadrons used.
P-40F seems to be model where the two under wing 100lbs show up.
This seems to be the official bomb load (one 500lb and two 100lbs) until the P-40M shows up (at the factory) at the end of Nov 1942 and it is supposed to be designed to carry one 500lb bomb and two 250lb bombs. MAX gross weight as listed at 9100lbs.
The USAAC was still putting out somewhat skewed weight charts, like 180lb pilots (including flight gear and parachute) and P-40s were only supposed to be filled with 120 gal of gas to hit normal gross weight.
There were two 'stripper' models of the P-40 from the factory, some service squadrons tried their own.
The P-40L had two guns taken out, the forward fuel tank, restricted ammo for the four remaining guns, a little armor taken out a few other fittings.
The Initial P-40N-1 is the famous stripper model but only 400 were made and many of them gained weight in squadron service. The N-5 model, as noted by others, kept the lightweight components like the lighter radiators, oil coolers and wheels/tires but added the engine starters/larger battery/forward fuel tank/vacuum instruments back in.
The P-40N-5 was supposed to be able to carry three 500lb bombs from the start. You can find late P-40N pilots manuals that give a 2500lbs bomb load but don't give any more information, like gross weight with that load or what was supposed to be taken out (or not put in) to allow that (restricted fuel load, restricted ammo, carry only 4 guns or only two?).
Or information of suggested field length? One manual gives runway lengths for carrying very large drop tanks. Also says not to carry ammo.

One list of performance for P-40N-25 says a 750 mile range at 10,000ft but does not say at what speed or what fuel load. Also says a 340 range with a single 500lb bomb. Also says 3100 mile ferry range at 198mph and a 2800 mile range at 10,000ft but speed not given.

P-40s could do a lot, they just couldn't do different things at the same time.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Official bomb loads often were not what some of the squadrons used.
P-40F seems to be model where the two under wing 100lbs show up.
This seems to be the official bomb load (one 500lb and two 100lbs) until the P-40M shows up (at the factory) at the end of Nov 1942 and it is supposed to be designed to carry one 500lb bomb and two 250lb bombs. MAX gross weight as listed at 9100lbs.
The USAAC was still putting out somewhat skewed weight charts, like 180lb pilots (including flight gear and parachute) and P-40s were only supposed to be filled with 120 gal of gas to hit normal gross weight.
There were two 'stripper' models of the P-40 from the factory, some service squadrons tried their own.
The P-40L had two guns taken out, the forward fuel tank, restricted ammo for the four remaining guns, a little armor taken out a few other fittings.
The Initial P-40N-1 is the famous stripper model but only 400 were made and many of them gained weight in squadron service. The N-5 model, as noted by others, kept the lightweight components like the lighter radiators, oil coolers and wheels/tires but added the engine starters/larger battery/forward fuel tank/vacuum instruments back in.
The P-40N-5 was supposed to be able to carry three 500lb bombs from the start. You can find late P-40N pilots manuals that give a 2500lbs bomb load but don't give any more information, like gross weight with that load or what was supposed to be taken out (or not put in) to allow that (restricted fuel load, restricted ammo, carry only 4 guns or only two?).
Or information of suggested field length? One manual gives runway lengths for carrying very large drop tanks. Also says not to carry ammo.

One list of performance for P-40N-25 says a 750 mile range at 10,000ft but does not say at what speed or what fuel load. Also says a 340 range with a single 500lb bomb. Also says 3100 mile ferry range at 198mph and a 2800 mile range at 10,000ft but speed not given.

P-40s could do a lot, they just couldn't do different things at the same time.

The general rule of thumb with the P-40 was that the factory was often following the field modifications.

This very much includes the stripping, which also involved that armor on the oil cooler. And field stripping was often undone and more, with a lot of extra things added that were not in the spec - radio direction finders was a big one in the CBI and sometimes in the Pacific too. Things like rocket tubes were also routinely used in the CBI.

Kittyhawks in the Med were being used in long-ish range bombing missions, sometimes with both a fuel tank and bombs carried, some examples including the Salween gorge in Burma, attacks on Pantalleria from North Africa, and on Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily at various times from various bases. There is data on this in the 324th FG history but I don't have time to go through it right now.

But I believe from reading unit histories, one way they did that was by flying missions from the same fighter group, so they didn't have to rendezvous with other units. One squadron carried the bombs, another flew top cover.

I think this guy is 324th FG with a 500 lb on the centerline and wing bomblets. That is probably Italy or Sicily.

They were apparently sometimes carrying these small bombs on the wings in North Africa and Italy. I think this one is 57th FG with fuel on the centerline and the wing bomblets. This might be north Africa or maybe one of the Mediterranean Islands.

and I believe this is 325th FG P-40L with a 1,000 lb bomb

This is 79th FG P-40L with 500 lb mainline and 6 wing bomblets .. 50lbs?

The 79th FG website where I found that one just now notes that the P-40 had better range than the P-47s that replaced them. I don't know what configuration that means.

 

[Shortround6]

Nobody is doubting that the P-40s carried large bomb loads in the 2nd 1/2 of 1943.
The P-40Ls were built from January through April of 1943
The P-40Ms were built from Nov 25th 1942 to Feb 13 1943
The P-40Ns were built from March 1943 to the end of production.
Now it often took several months to get a plane from the factory to a combat unit.

The later P-40s could use a 75 gallon tank on the centerline.
It seems that underwing tanks were used for ferrying only?

The small bombs pictured seem to be British. American bombs did not use the circular tail.
At guess they appear to be 20lb ?
The 20lb and 40lb are similar in shape and the smaller bomb is just under 23in long and 4 in in diameter (rounding off tenths) while the larger is 27in long and 5 in diameter.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Nobody is doubting that the P-40s carried large bomb loads in the 2nd 1/2 of 1943.
The P-40Ls were built from January through April of 1943

P-40Ls were just late part of the P-40F run. It's literally just a stripped P-40F with a few other very minor detail changes, none of them anything to do with bombs as far as I know.

I think the first two of those pics in my last post are P-40F

Ds and Es were carrying 500lb bombs, Ks had the capacity to carry heavier bombs (and a heavier official gross weight though that may not mean as much as some here assume)

The P-40Ms were built from Nov 25th 1942 to Feb 13 1943
The P-40Ns were built from March 1943 to the end of production.
Now it often took several months to get a plane from the factory to a combat unit.

The later P-40s could use a 75 gallon tank on the centerline.

I believe Es could carry 75 gallon tanks on the centerline.

It seems that underwing tanks were used for ferrying only?

The small bombs pictured seem to be British. American bombs did not use the circular tail.
At guess they appear to be 20lb ?
The 20lb and 40lb are similar in shape and the smaller bomb is just under 23in long and 4 in in diameter (rounding off tenths) while the larger is 27in long and 5 in diameter.

6 x 40 lbs bombs adds up to about 100 lbs per wing

 

[Shortround6]

6 x 40 lbs bombs adds up to about 100 lbs per wing

We are back to the confusing history of the under wing racks of the Hawk75/81/87 series.
The export Hawk 75s could have racks that held 5 20lbs each, perhaps 5 slightly larger bombs. They could hold 3 50lb bombs each. Or they could hold a single 100lb each (or 116lbs) on a different rack or mount? Curtiss claimed that the total bombload could be 850lbs including the 500lb bomb under the fuselage.
Of course the wing of the Hawk 75 only weighed about 850lbs, the wing on the early P-40s was about 1000lbs and wings on the later P-40s was a bit over 1100lbs. When you go from a 6000lb fighter to a 9000lb fighter you do have to beef up the wing.
P-36s and Hawk 75s had trouble landing when they weren't carrying bombs. Landing gear punching up through the wing. Rough runways and extra weight hanging under the plane was not going to make things easier.
I have no idea if there were any changes in the wing structure between the P-40E and the P-40N. If it is not visible to the outside the modelers don't seem to be interested.

I believe Es could carry 75 gallon tanks on the centerline.

Maybe it could be done. 75 gal of fuel is only 450lbs and the 52 gal tank only weighed 40lbs. An extra 10-20lbs of tank weight is not going to break the plane.
However a lot depends on when the 75 gal tanks show up and how many are in theater. The P-39s need them more.

Ds and Es were carrying 500lb bombs, Ks had the capacity to carry heavier bombs (and a heavier official gross weight though that may not mean as much as some here assume)

Lots of planes operated at over official gross weights. Lots of planes got broken while taxiing at or below official gross weights. But the higher the weight the worse the accident rate got and sometimes the more repairs that were needed.
On a day to day basis and barring accidents field length is very important.

https://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-40/P-40TOCLC.pdf

This gives the field length for 3 different weights for the P-40D/E and every pilots manual has similar charts. Please note that this chart is is not complete and leaves out the temperatur corrections. This chart is good for 32 degrees F or ) degrees C and the usual correction is about 10% for every 10 degrees above ) degrees C. Tropics means you need long runways.
Please not the difference between 8100lbs and 8700lbs, the difference gets worse as the weight goes up. Trying to take off at 9700lbs can get more than a little nerve racking.
Using WEP/WER can be useful but requires either permission from the squadron commander and tech officer or a stern talking to after landing. There were wires across the throttle that blocked the higher throttle settings and landing with the wire broken required reports to be filled out. Also required reports and/or extra work by the crew chief.

 

[bf109xxl]

The Soviets believed (and not only believed, but also widely applied) that the P-40E could easily carry a 500 kg bomb, the only problem being its length - the bomb rested against the radiator, which required design modifications. As standard, Soviet P-40s of the Northern Fleet (78th and 27th Fighter Aviation Regiments) carried combinations of 1xFAB-500, or 2xFAB-250, or 1xFAB-250+2xFAB-/ZAB-100. Moreover, in the USSR (more precisely, in the repair workshops of the Northern Fleet) in 1944, one " Kittyhawk " was equipped with a navigator's cabin with a bomb sight.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Trying out the comic writing, Hollywood has come calling, checking on how good the jokes appear to be, or how bad the judges have been. Bombs are given in long tons, averages in pounds, sorties in integers, percentages are rates per hundred. The jokes, P-40 fighter bomber operations in "early 1942" with 1,000 or 1,500 pound bomb loads from just about the start of bombing sorties and the larger load routine in the RAF at least by the end of the year, fairly heavy B-24 losses in Africa. They would probably not be jokes to the people who actually did the operations.

Concrete runways reduced take off runs but increased tyre wear compared to dirt/grass. As experience grew and runways became better and longer the general rules became loads went up, as did things like take off power and empty weight.

The following is the Lancaster in Bomber Command, yearly figures, from the War Room Manuals, the average bomb load for the war was 10,0064.5 pounds using these figures, which is a slight underestimate as pathfinder Lancaster regularly did not drop all their Target Indicators. The figures assume all missing aircraft bombed something.

Year	1942​	1943​	1944​	1945​	All war
Day Sent	261​	2​	26,551​	13,325​	40,139​
Day Atk.	211​	1​	23,242​	11,568​	35,022​
Day Bomb	403.80​	4.90​	125,065.90​	56,048.30​	181,522.90​
Av. Day Load	4,286.79​	10,976.00​	12,053.51​	10,853.06​	11,610.17​
Night Sent	4,377​	27,577​	56,259​	20,051​	108,264​
Night Atk.	3,943​	25,558​	51,851​	19,071​	100,423​
Night Bomb	10,953.00​	100,512.90​	235,939.70​	79,637.30​	427,042.90​
Av. Night Load	6,222.35​	8,809.33​	10,192.76​	9,353.86​	9,525.47​
Day % atk	80.84​	50.00​	87.54​	86.81​	87.25​
Night % atk	90.08​	92.68​	92.16​	95.11​	92.76​

Without the need for formation flying and larger numbers of escorts more of the night bombers claimed to reach a target. In the 8th Air force 82.05% of airborne B-17 sorties bombed, 77.17% of the B-24, figures a slight underestimate as 1.5% of mostly B-17 sorties were classified as "unused spares". The B-17 could overfly bad weather easier but had to maintain tighter formations than Bomber Command used.

Small fragmentation bombs, like the US or British 20 pound were nice additions to airfield strafing.

The P-40E engine take off rating was 1,150 HP, the P-40F 1,300 HP, the P-40K 1,325 HP. The P-40E-1 was the export version of the P-40E, in practice they were mixed and matched, production June 1941 to June 1942, P-40F January 1942 to January 1943, next Allison version was the export version P-40K-1, first 1 in May 1942, switching to the P-40K-5 or later August/September 1942. The 600 K-1 ended up as 336 US, 191 Britain 73 USSR.

The 9th AF P-40 were doing a lot of non bombing missions, claims of 170 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air, so the following is more a guide to activity than bomb loads carried.

Month	Missions	Sorties	Bombs	Av Load
Oct-42​	81​	940​	50.00​	106.38​
Nov-42​	112​	889​	44.50​	100.11​
Dec-42​	50​	650​	73.75​	226.92​
Jan-43​	54​	839​	39.58​	94.35​
Feb-43​	6​	120​	5.01​	83.50​
Mar-43​	130​	1565​	56.87​	72.68​
Apr-43​	216​	3058​	168.86​	110.44​

The B-24 average load was 3,455 pounds and the B-25 2,421 pounds using the same criteria.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Trying out the comic writing, Hollywood has come calling, checking on how good the jokes appear to be, or how bad the judges have been. Bombs are given in long tons, averages in pounds, sorties in integers, percentages are rates per hundred. The jokes, P-40 fighter bomber operations in "early 1942" with 1,000 or 1,500 pound bomb loads from just about the start of bombing sorties and the larger load routine in the RAF at least by the end of the year, fairly heavy B-24 losses in Africa. They would probably not be jokes to the people who actually did the operations.

Oh dear, whatever this is supposed to be. Would you call May "late 1942"?

Don't worry Geoffrey, I'll circle back to you eventually mate .

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Regarding,

A pilot flying a P-40F from the US 324th FG sank the Italian destroyer Leone Pancaldo off of Cape Bon on 29 April 1943, using 1,000 lb bombs.

Not on the 29th, not with 1,000 pound bombs. 30 April 1943 Italian destroyers Lampo and Leone Pancaldo sunk, German (ex Greek) ZG.3 Hermes (Vasilevs Georgios I) damaged beyond local repair and later scuttled. The ammunition cargo on Lampo was set on fire, ship abandoned, sinking about 90 minutes later.

I was kindly supplied the details of the raids, From the Advanced Air HQ Western Desert Daily Intelligence Summaries, NA AIR 23/1790:

"Day 30 April. Fighter-bombers continued offensive against enemy shipping in the Gulf of Tunis, claiming one destroyer, one Siebel ferry, one 120 foot launch and one "E" boat sunk and set on fire. They also damaged another destroyer. The jetties at Kelibia and Sidi Daoud were also bombed effectively."

Details of individual missions against destroyers are:

10:20-12:30: Twelve Warhawks of 66 Squadron, twelve of 64 Squadron and twelve of 314 Squadron with 36 x 500 lb bombs, with twelve Warhawks of 65 Squadron as cover, bombed a destroyer at K.5797 heading north-west, claiming a very near miss and several near misses. After the attack the destroyer reduced speed and turned south.

10:40-12:25: Twelve Kittyhawks of No. 3 Squadron RAAF and twelve of No. 250 Squadron with 20 x 500 lb bombs, with twelve Kittyhawks of No. 112 Squadron as top cover, attacked a destroyer heading south at K.4376, claiming two very near misses.

11:00-12:45: Twelve Warhawks of 85 Squadron, twelve of 86 Squadron, twelve of 87 Squadron, and twelve of 316 Squadron, eight aircraft of each carrying 500 lb bombs, attacked a destroyer at K.5797, scoring two direct hits and starting a fire.

12:20-14:40: SAAF Kittyhawks bombed two "E" Boats.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Geez! They needed the Marines.
On 11 Dec 1941, CPT "Hammerin' Hank" Elrod flying a VMF-211 F4F-3 sank the Japanese destroyer Kisaragi with just a pair of 100 lb bombs.