Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I didn't know that, I figured light-bomber was for the in-between part since the attack category would have taken up some of the light-bomber category too.Pre-war USAAF doctrine envisioned three classes of aircraft. Attack aircraft used in direct support of the ground troops classed A- for attack, heavy bombers for attacking strategic targets, and medium bombers for those "in between" targets.
Yeah and the development of the B-47 would put an aircraft in the same size range as the B-29 as a medium bomber. The B-29's and B-50's would eventually be reclassified as mediums from Very Heavy at some point in time.The A-26 could carry as many as, or more bombs than, the B-25 and B-26, and the Army was seriously considering reclassifying the B-17 and B-24 as "medium".
Yeah, honestly -- there's a part of me that wonders if there'd have been any difference if we basically built another 4000-5000 and either scrapped the B-26 or stopped the production line early.From Table 7 in Ray Wagner's American Combat Planes in ETO:
1. B-25: 63,177 sorties, 84,980 tons bombs, 380 combat losses, 193 Enemy A/C Claimed.
2. B-26: 129,943 sorties, 169,382 tons bombs, 911 combat losses, 402 Enemy A/C Claimed.
The B-25 and B-26 both have almost exactly the same tons per sortie (1.345 and 1.304), losses per 1000 sorties (6 and 7), and enemy aircraft claimed per 1000 sorties (3.06 and 3.09). The Marauder flew twice the sorties of the B-25 and performed almost exactly the same in these categories.
The sources I have seen have the B-24 being faster and having longer range than the B-17 with the same payload. See, for example, B17 vs B24, and B-17 vs. B-24 | The Veterans Breakfast Club | Creating communities of listening
This doesn't necessarily mean it was a better combat aircraft, at the B-17 was reputedly both less difficult to fly and more robust.
But the extra bomb bay of the B-24 meant it could carry auxiliary tanks while still carrying a decent payload.
But it would have been way better with one huge bomb-bay: Why use two bomb-bays when one HUGE bay will work?But the extra bomb bay of the B-24 meant it could carry auxiliary tanks while still carrying a decent payload.
I assume you are talking about the Doolittle raid but the Navy later on did more experiments with the B-25 or known to the navy as the PBJ. As you can see by the pictures below from the book Squadron Signal B-25 in action book.
View attachment 352612
Doolittle would have appreciated that option.
Lieutenant Commander Syd Bottomley, who had earlier served as XO of VB-3 at the Battle of Midway and then succeeded Max Leslie as squadron CO when Leslie fleeted up to CAG-3, was assigned to the Ship Experimental Unit of the Naval Aircraft Factory at Mustin Field, Philadelphia in the fall of 1943.
To further prove their points of hook location and swivel, Bottomley sought and received permission for BuAer to include their PBJ-1H in catapult and shipboard handling tests. An SBD tail hook assembly (the SBD was considered to have the most reliable tailhook arrangement) was installed on the PBJ and it was readied for further testing. In land based tests conducted at USCGAS Cape May an unexpected problem appeared: with full-flight engagement of the arresting gear, the single pilot's seat lock would disengage and let the pilot and seat slide forward onto the yoke. This was a big surprise the first time it happened and certainly not a happy event for Bottomley. As a solution, a steel strap was welded to the top of the seat from the bulkhead behind the pilot to keep the seat in place.
On November 15, 1944, three aircraft were successfully tested for arrested landings and catapult launches aboard USS Shangri-La. Charlie Lane successfully demonstrated the results of relocating the swivel arrestor hook on the F7F. Bob Elder put an arrestor hook equipped P-51 through its paces.
And then it was Bottomley's turn in the PBJ. Bottomley told the story:
" . . . it was amazing how easily the PBJ swung into the groove and picked up a wire. The ensuing catapult shot was a breeze, as was the next landing. Then the PBJ was struck below for handling tests on the hangar deck. The main wheels had been designed to turn sideways to ease the plane into tight spots, so BuAer and AirLant staff observers were all over, in and under the PBJ.
"Everything had gone so well it was determined no further shipboard tests were necessary and I taxied into position on the catapult. I had planned to take just the plane captain, Koffel, and Chief Photo Mate Hicks back to Philadelphia direct from the ship. However, Lieutenant Jim Daniels, the SEU catapult officer, talked me into letting him ride over the bottom hatch below the cockpit with Koffel. Chief Hicks sat in the cannoneer seat to my right.
"When the catapult fired, the yoke flew out of my hands as the pilot's seat slid back into the bulkhead, doubling up the steel jury straps that were only designed to keep the seat from moving forward. Some observer on the ship had apparently tried to adjust the pilot seat position and the latch had never re-positioned in its track slot. There we were, airborne off the bow with no one near the controls. But thank God for Jim Daniels! Jim had played tackle for the Georgia Tech Rose Bowl team immortalized by "Wrong Way" Right. With one shove of his mighty arm that seat went back along the tracks into position where I could grab the yoke and reach the wheels-up lever. We then departed for NAS Norfolk, landing an hour later none the worse for our experience."