Why not?
B-26: any improvement over B-25?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Why not?
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The B26 nose was to small. It could only accomodate a single machine gun.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Shortround6
Major General
I don't know if they ever tried a solid nose B-26.
Or if there was a problem with the handling at low altitude/high speed. You want a pretty stable aircraft for ground strafing that responds quickly to the controls.
With five fixed .50 cal guns already one would think they could have fitted 3-5 more fairly easily if they did away with the bombardier.
Or if there was a problem with the handling at low altitude/high speed. You want a pretty stable aircraft for ground strafing that responds quickly to the controls.
With five fixed .50 cal guns already one would think they could have fitted 3-5 more fairly easily if they did away with the bombardier.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I don't think I have seen/heard of external ordnance on the B-25 in the PTO, however, over North Africa, they did.
Here's a B-25C with bombs on the external racks, from the 12th BG, North Africa, 1943
Old Wizard
2nd Lieutenant
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Not as easy as it sounds. Although the B-26 carried side blisters, one would have to examine how the nose is assembled to the rest of the aircraft and what stresses the aircraft will be under when firing the weapons. After B-25s were being field modified to carry several 50s in the nose, a stress analysis was completed to ensure the modification wasn't going to destroy the aircraft. From photos I've seen the B-26's forward fuselage was assembled in one unit so you just couldn't change the nose without major redesign and retooling
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Why?
They already had the A-20, B-25 and A-26...some of which had up to 14 forward firing .50 MGs.
They did install cheek pods on the B-26, and a short run of the B-26B-10 had wing-mounted MGs installed in addition to the cheek pods, giving them at least 8 fixed forward .50 MGs for strafing. The cheek pods mounted on the B-26 were set much further back than typical installations on the other types.
There were also a B-26B (42-43319) "Wild Willie II" that had two .50 MGs mounted to either side of the fuselage interior, the barrels protruding through openings in the nose glazing, but lacked cheek pods.
And there was one B-26B (41-31672) "Pistol Packin' Mama" that was tested with a combination of two 37mm cannon and two .50 MG mounted in a solid nose along with twin .50 cheek pods.
These last two I mentioned were tested in Baltimore only and none ever saw combat to the best of my knowledge.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I think the B-25 was a better choice for this type of modification
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Agreed...and I always wondered if the cheek packs on the B-26 were set back like that to keep from altering the CoG any more than they had to.
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
It was tried. Here is a shot of a 73rd BS B-26 field modified with twin .50s and twin 20mms in the nose in The Aleutians, October 28, 1942.
Aleutian based Marauders flew mostly torpedo and masthead bombing missions against Japanese shipping around Attu and Kiska. Captain John Pletcher flew this plane in an attack that sank the Cheribon Maru on 26 November 1942. I haven't been able to pinpoint the exact date this modification was made, but may have been in response to losses suffered in mid October in attacks on transports and destroyers that cost the unit two Marauders.
The first package guns were retrofitted to Pacific based B-26Bs of 70th Bomb Squadron in October 1942. Like the B-26s assigned to the Aleutians, they were tasked with low level torpedo and skip or masthead bombing. Possibly first used during the attack on beached Japanese transports at Guadalcanal on November 15, 1942. They found that the mountings had a tendency to break and spray the nose compartment with bullets. After a couple incidents they were removed. Captain John Sharp, 70th BS is credited with the shoot down of an H6K flying boat while flying a B-26B fitted with a pair of .50s in January 1943.
No effort was made to convert 22nd BG B-26s to strafers. Nor were the B-25s later assigned to the unit. The decision to phase out B-26s in the Pacific was made long before B-25 strafers were imagined, the 69th and 70th BS being the last to deploy with Marauders, in mid-1942. After June 1942, all B-26 production was slated for the MTO and ETO. In the MTO low level ops by B-26s and B-25s was found to be too costly and they reverted to conventional medium level bombing. It took only two missions over Europe to convince the 8th AF that low level ops were not worth it.
Aleutian based Marauders flew mostly torpedo and masthead bombing missions against Japanese shipping around Attu and Kiska. Captain John Pletcher flew this plane in an attack that sank the Cheribon Maru on 26 November 1942. I haven't been able to pinpoint the exact date this modification was made, but may have been in response to losses suffered in mid October in attacks on transports and destroyers that cost the unit two Marauders.
The first package guns were retrofitted to Pacific based B-26Bs of 70th Bomb Squadron in October 1942. Like the B-26s assigned to the Aleutians, they were tasked with low level torpedo and skip or masthead bombing. Possibly first used during the attack on beached Japanese transports at Guadalcanal on November 15, 1942. They found that the mountings had a tendency to break and spray the nose compartment with bullets. After a couple incidents they were removed. Captain John Sharp, 70th BS is credited with the shoot down of an H6K flying boat while flying a B-26B fitted with a pair of .50s in January 1943.
No effort was made to convert 22nd BG B-26s to strafers. Nor were the B-25s later assigned to the unit. The decision to phase out B-26s in the Pacific was made long before B-25 strafers were imagined, the 69th and 70th BS being the last to deploy with Marauders, in mid-1942. After June 1942, all B-26 production was slated for the MTO and ETO. In the MTO low level ops by B-26s and B-25s was found to be too costly and they reverted to conventional medium level bombing. It took only two missions over Europe to convince the 8th AF that low level ops were not worth it.
Shortround6
Major General
There could very well have been CG problems with the B-26. And/or landing gear problems if too much weight was added to the nose even if the plane flew OK.
Just a wild guess on the B-25 but the under wing bombs might be in conflict with filling the outer wing tanks? As in you could use one or the other but not both? Added drag of external bombs and restricting fuel load might make for real short range?
Just a wild guess on the B-25 but the under wing bombs might be in conflict with filling the outer wing tanks? As in you could use one or the other but not both? Added drag of external bombs and restricting fuel load might make for real short range?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The 12th BG was operating from various fields there in North Africa ('42 - '43) to support British and Allied forces, so they didn't have the need for long range during those capaigns.
I just saw that I gave some negative ratings for some posts. That was not my intention, wasn't aware of it. Actually it happened by accident as obviously gave some ratings without knowing what they mean e.g. bacon. And as I mostly use my cell right now to write posts here it might well be possible that I pushed the wrong button. So sorry for that.
I have deleted them.
I have deleted them.
Last edited:
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
It probably had more to do with the shape of the fuselage. The teardrop shape of the B-26 meant that the widest part was the bomb bay/wing root. As mentioned earlier, the nose was pretty cramped, but there was plenty of room for internal ammo storage in the navigator's compartment.
