Allied Bombers and Fighter Bombers in 1942:, North Africa, China, Burma, Pacific, Aleutians

[Shortround6]

Just about everything was on a sliding scale or if you prefer, every weapons was sort of a light on a dimmer switch. It is not just off or on but a large variation. A really dim light is better than dark, it keeps you from walking into the table or sofa, it does not keep you from stepping on the kid's toy car or stepping on a Lego with your bare feet.

And no gun or weapons system works 100% of the time. Even a super bright light will not help if I am not looking at the floor.

But I am not buying dim light bulbs to save on electricity

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Just about everything was on a sliding scale or if you prefer, every weapons was sort of a light on a dimmer switch. It is not just off or on but a large variation. A really dim light is better than dark, it keeps you from walking into the table or sofa, it does not keep you from stepping on the kid's toy car or stepping on a Lego with your bare feet.

And no gun or weapons system works 100% of the time. Even a super bright light will not help if I am not looking at the floor.

But I am not buying dim light bulbs to save on electricity

One other thing I've learned in the last few years is that M2 Brownings and HS 404 20mm cannons, and some of the German kit too, jammed constantly especially in the first couple of years of the war. I think that tends to get underplayed, especially in things like pop culture ala TV and video games.

 

[Greg Boeser]

View attachment 855578

Almost all the Japanese crew served weapons seem to be described as terrible, and yet they seem to have made a lot of them work regardless

In Europe low level attack missions were abandoned due to the quality and quantity of German light and medium flak.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

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:
View attachment 853787
View attachment 853788
View attachment 853789
View attachment 853790

Mike

So Mike, I'd like to thank you very much for introducing this book to the discussion. I bought a copy of it which I've read now and I think it contains a wealth of information on the subject of the use of Kittyhawk fighters as fighter bombers, and their bomb-loads and so on. Plus some other interesting data points I hadn't seen before.

Normally I am not really drawn to this type of pilot's memoir precisely because it's mainly to do with bombing missions that are mainly fighter-bomber sorties without a lot of action other than the random (and still very scary) risk of flak. The author, Bert Horden, joined 112 Sqn in 1943 when they were transitioning over into pretty much exclusively fighter bomber missions. He was also using Kittyhawk III, which could either mean P-40K or M, during most of his tour. Toward the end they got Kittyhawk IV which is the P-40N, which was disappointing since some of the other Kittyhawk squadrons in the same fighter wing got Mustang IVs / P-51D, and the P-40Ns they got a had host of vexing technical problems initially which caused him several issues during missions.

Bert includes a lot of nice photos in the memoir but I didn't see any full length shots of the Kittyhawks to tell if they were P-40K or M, and he also is a little sparse on dates though one can vaguely peg most incidents to a particular time period.

I'll post some excerpts from this book which I think may clarify a few issues relevant to the discussion in this thread.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

In Europe low level attack missions were abandoned due to the quality and quantity of German light and medium flak.

Until the tactical war resumed in Europe, which it did fairly early on in Sicily and Italy...

 

[Steamed_Banana]

So following up on my previous post, I'm starting to see two or three timelines emerging with two different narratives about the Kittyhawk variants adaptation to carrying heavier bomb loads in the MTO. This is a bit different from what happened in CBI and the Pacific but I'll have to circle back to those Theaters later.

According to Shark Squadron Pilot, typical armament in early 1943 for Kittyhawk IIIs (I believe P-40K at this point) in North Africa consisted of one 500 lb bomb or two 250 lb bombs on the center line, with another six 40 lb bombs (three on each wing). The 250 lb bombs often had 12" or 18" detonation rods mounted. An example of this is listed on page 63.

By August he also describes carrying a 63 gallon (!) fuel tank on the centerline.

He refers to Cab Rank operations in September (44?) on page 125. In the next few pages he discusses increased bomb armament being carried.

He notes that Warrant Officer Smith, the squadron engineer for 112 Sqn, 'invented' a special bomb rack for Kittyhawks to carry two 250 lb bombs on the centerline in North Africa, for which he received the MBE.

He notes that several things were removed in North Africa to lighten the aircraft which had to be put back in for Italy- artificial horizon, a smaller battery (which had to be upgraded back to a bigger one), aluminum wheels replaced the steel wheels, but as bomb loads went up in Italy, these cracked so had to be replaced with steel rims again. He states the following:

"In North Africa the weather was so good we didn't need our artificial horizons on the instrument panel. When it was decided to uplift the bomb-load to two 500 pounders under the wings the authorities decided to remove the artificial horizon and other equipment to compensate for the additional bomb-load."

So I take this to mean that they were already carrying 500 lb bombs on the wing in North Africa. No explanation is given to any modification to the aircraft to carry 500 lbs on the wings, but it seems to be a decision taken in the field which was later officially followed up with the Kittyhawk Mk IV / P-40N.

He goes on to note that in Italy, they were now carrying either a 500 lb under the centerline, plus another 500 lb under each wing, or a 1,000 lb bomb under the fueselage, plus a 500 lb bomb under each wing. This is still with the Kittyhawk III though it's not clear if this is a P-40K or M, (however, I believe I can follow up on that and find out). He notes that this is almost as much bomb load as the B-25s they sometimes escorted.

He notes (page 127) that to takeoff with this load they had to add some flap and stand on the brakes until the revs had mounted up before moving forward. He discusses one incident where a Kittyhawk failed to take off and skidded off the field and into some tents, which luckily didn't cause any casualties. But he doesn't mention many other issues.

One other thing which comes up is that by this point in Italy they were operating largely from Marsden mats due to the issue of mud. These were very good but they made the prospect of a belly landing much more perilous, and even more so with bombs still on board. He mentions one colleague belly landing outside of the base on a nearby beach. Something I'd never thought of.

He mentions a bit later (page 149) having to spiral up slowly to altitude with the heavy bomb load, and their climbing over the saddle on a mountain range, and they were waffling over that very slowly with a 1,500 lb bomb load, the Germans had dragged a light AAA gun up to the mountain and wiped out one of their fighters before the other could get away.

They still occasionally used 40 lb bombs on the wings (so the 500 lb wing mounting must have still allowd this?) later in the book on page 161, describing another raid with 500 lb bombs on the wings the next day.

It is not until almost at the end of his tour, on page 163, that he describes their unit receiving Kittyhawk IVs. These were 'officially' rated for the 1,000 lb bomb on the centerline and 500 on each wing. (an important distinction). Unfortunately they had a lot of problems with the Kittyhawk IVs with several things not working properly - this isn't the first time I've read about problems like this with the type.

I found a similar narrative with equivalent detail about the Kittyhawk II / P-40F and L but I'll have to post that tomorrow.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Ok so in a part two to this as a followup, there is a very good website (may it persist forever) for 3 Sqn RAAF, and this has a detailed breakdown of their service use of the Kittyhawk IIa / P-40L (mostly in 1943) which you can read yourself here:

The Kittyhawk Mk.IIa (P-40L) in 3 Sqn RAAF Service

(that page links to a couple of other related pages with more info on the Kittyhawk II and other planes used by the unit)

This site says that normal bomb load for the Kittyhawk IIa was one 500 lb or two 250 lb bombs on the centerline, and the six 40 lbs bombs on the wings. So the same as with the earlier Kittyhawk III, 740 lbs. Later in Italy this was increased by carrying a 1,000 lb bomb so the total load is up to 1,000 or 1,240 lbs.

The site notes:

"It was at Cutella [Italy] that 3 Squadron began bombing with 1,000 pounders after it had been tested and proven safe by W/Cdr Wilmont."

So the emphasis here is that once again the unit itself established the bomb load.