Dateline 1941: Did the Martin Baltimore have any advantages over the Douglas A-20 Havoc sufficient to justify US adoption?

Shortround6 said:

PE-2's numbers (range and speed) are with internal bombs which are limited to six 220lb bombs. The bigger bombs ( like 550lb) are carried externally. While this adds to the flexibility it also means that both speed and range are not what the stats say when carrying the larger bombs.

Click to expand...

True, Pe-2 was however able to successfully conduct some fairly long distance raids early in the war against various targets such as the Ploesti oil fields and German shipping in the Baltic. If you put an R-2600 (or say, an Ah-82) into it maybe it could carry more bombs and still fly faster (though you'd probably need to find a place to put some more fuel). I would love to know what the speed of the (non-speculative) aircraft was with external ordinance. Regardless, it's always still helpful to have that speed to run-away with after the bombs are dropped.

Shortround6 said:

Early B-25s held 652 gallons in the wings, during the B-25C & D production run aux wing tanks were added that held 300 gallons. Then you had various tanks that fit into bomb bay or into the waist of the plane behind the bomb bay.
The Baltimore falls in between the A-20 and the B-25 and was a tail dragger. No US large bomber after the B-23 used a tail wheel except the Ventura and since that was a modified version of the Super Electra/ Hudson/Loadstar it inherited the tail gear.

Click to expand...

Being a tail-dragger no doubt contributed to the tricky takeoff handling. But lets not forget that the B-17 was also a tail dragger. However I do think that if they found it tricky to take off from nice grass fields in England or desert fields in Egypt, assigning green crews to Baltimores and making them take off from Henderson field or Port Moreseby would be rather cruel.

Shortround6 said:

Douglas also started work on the A-26 in late 1940 which might have also influenced the US lack of Interest in the Baltimore.

Click to expand...

Also a good point! Too bad it took them so long to get into action...

Schweik said:

Being a tail-dragger no doubt contributed to the tricky takeoff handling. But lets not forget that the B-17 was also a tail dragger.

Click to expand...

The B-17 (or any other 4 engine taildragger) was a lot more forgiving with an engine out during takeoff than any twin.

What the RAF thought the performance was. Note fuel weights may be for different octane ratings Fighters 15 minutes fuel allowance, others 50 minutes. Maryland service ceiling 27,000 feet at 17,200 pounds (Overload weight maximum fuel), maximum fuel 433 + 233 gallons auxiliary. The following needs to be put into a spreadsheet. Note there are two columns for the Maryland

Maker / / / Martin / / Douglas / Douglas / Douglas
Name / / / Maryland 167F(3) / / Havoc I / Havoc II / Boston II
Type / / / Bomber-Reconnaissance / / Fighter / Fighter / Bomber
Engine / Number / / 2 / / 2 / 2 / 2
/ Make / / Twin Wasp SC3-G / / Twin Wasp S3C4-G / Cyclone A5B / Twin Wasp S3C4-G
/ Cooling / / Air / / Air / Air / Air
Power / Horse Power / / 1,000 / / 1,050 / 1,400 / 1,030
/ At Height (feet) / / 11,500 / / 13,100 / 10,000 / 13,100
Size / Span (feet, inches) / / 61' 4" / / 61' 4" / 61' 4" / 61' 4"
/ Length (feet, inches) / / 46' 8" / / 47' / 47' / 47'
/ Height (feet, inches) / / 16' 3" / / 15' 10" / 15' 10" / 15' 10"
/ Wing Area (square feet) / / 539 (Gross) / / 465 / 465 Gross / 465 (Gross)
Men / Crew / / 3 / / 2 / 2 / 3
Armament / Forward Fuselage / / / / 8x0.303" / 8x0.303" / 4x0.303" Browning
/ Forward Wings / / 4x7.5mm / / / /
/ Dorsal / / 1x7.5mm / / / / 1x0.303" Vickers
/ Ventral / / 3x7.5mm (2 fixed) / / / / 1x0.303" Vickers
/ Rounds Per Machine Gun / / 500 / / 740 / / 500 (Vickers in 5 Mags. each of 100)
Bomb Load / Normal (pounds) / / 2,000 / / / /
Weight / Tare (pounds) / / 10,857 / / 11,800 / 13,073 / 11,520
Normal / Weight (pounds) / / 15,871 / / 15,400 / 16,700 / 15,150
/ Take Off (Over 50 ft) (Yards) / / 640 / / 600 / 420 / 600
/ Landing (Over 50 ft) (Yards) / / 700 / / 560 / 551 / 540
/ Climb to Height (feet) / / 15,000 / / 15,000 / 11,500 / 15,000
/ Climb to Height Time (Mins) / / 10.9 / / 9 / 5.5 / 8.4
/ Service Ceiling (Feet) / / 28,600 / / 32,400 / 32,500 / 32,600
/ Maximum Speed (m.p.h) / / 292 / / 312 / 327 / 311
/ Max Speed Height (Feet) / / 13,000 / / 15,000 / 12,000 / 15,000
/ Cruising Speed (m.p.h) / / 240 / / 245 / 258 / 245
/ Cruise Speed Height / / 15,000 / / 15,000 / 15,000 / 15,000
/ Bomb Load (pounds) / / 1,000 / / / / 1,000
/ 50 Minutes allowance / Range (miles) / 1,040 / / 690 / 295 / 360
/ 50 Minutes allowance / Endurance Hours / 4.35 / / 2.83 / 1.14 / 1.48
/ Fuel (for range, gallons) / / 312 / / 209 / 99 / 109
/ Fuel (for allowance, gallons) / / 60 / / 62 / 72 / 62
/ Fuel (Total, gallons) / / 372 / / / / 171
/ Fuel (Total, Gallons) / / 372 / / 271 / 171 / 171
Extended / Overload Weight (pounds) (Max bombs (or Fuel if same)) / / 17,780 / / / 17,140 / 17,150
/ Overload Weight (pounds) (Max Fuel) / / 17,200 / / / /
/ Take Off (Over 50 ft) (Yards) / / 800 - 850 / / / / 850
/ Climb to Height (feet) / / / / / 20,000 / 15,000
/ Climb to Height Time (mins) / / / / / 9.8 / 10.3
/ Service Ceiling / / 26,300 / / / 32,200 / 30,300
/ Maximum Bombs (Cruise) / Speed (m.p.h) / 242 / / / 253 / 243
/ / Height (feet) / 15,000 / / / 20,000 / 15,000
/ / Bomb Load (pounds) / 2,000 / / / / 1,500
/ / Range (50 mins allow.) (miles) / 1,250 / / / 650 / 690
/ / Endurance (50 mins allow.) Hrs / 5.2 / / / 2.58 / 2.83
/ / Fuel (for range, gallons) / 373 / / / 199 / 209
/ / Fuel (for allowance, gallons) / 60 / / / 72 / 62
/ / Fuel (Total, Gallons) / 433 / / / 271 / 271
/ Maximum Fuel (Cruise) / Speed (m.p.h) / / 242 / / / 243
/ / Height (feet) / / 15,000 / / / 15,000
/ / Bomb Load (pounds) / / / / / 1,500
/ / Range (50 mins allow.) (miles) / / 1,950 / / 650 / 690
/ / Endurance (50 mins allow.) Hrs / / 8.1 / / 2.58 / 2.83
/ / Fuel (for range, gallons) / / 581 / / 199 / 209
/ / Fuel (for allowance, gallons) / / 60 / / 72 / 62
/ / Fuel (Total, Gallons) / / 641 / / 271 / 271
/ Maximum Fuel / Capacity (Gallons) / 433 / 641 / 271 / 271 / 271
/ Maximum Fuel (Economical) / Speed (m.p.h) / 160 - 170 / 160 - 170 / 165 - 175 / 180 - 190 / 165-175
/ / Height (feet) / 15,000 / 15,000 / 15,000 / 20,000 / 15,000
/ / Bomb Load (pounds) / 2,000 / / / / 1,500
/ / Range (50 mins allow.) (miles) / 1,450 / 2,320 / 840 / 680 / 840
/ / Endurance (50 mins allow.) Hrs / 8.8 / 14.1 / 4.9 / 3.6 / 4.95
/ / Fuel (for range, gallons) / 373 / 581 / 209 / 199 / 209
/ / Fuel (for allowance, gallons) / 60 / 60 / 62 / 72 / 62
/ / Fuel (Total, Gallons) / 433 / 641 / 271 / 271 / 271

Note there are two columns for the Maryland

Can you clarify this? Based on your first two rows it appears tto be one Maryland column and three DB-7 columns....?

Schweik said:

Mossie seems to have done just about everything well, though the wood construction didn't seem to appreciate perpetual rain, high humidity and heat.

Click to expand...

True, but therein lies the conundrum; this aircraft can do almost everything, so why would you not consider it for the Pacific? They did of course, and issues did arise. Australia is both hot and humid in different parts and they built them there, which is indicative of the fact that despite these issues, which are not always foreseen at the time, the type was built and operated in an unfriendly environment.

If they could have figured out a paint, different type of epoxy, or a coating or something which could allow them to function in these kinds of conditions without even a hangar to dry out in, then by all means, they should have brought them in. A functioning squadron or two of Mossies could have been enormously helpful I think. I suspect the reason they didn't is because it wasn't really feasible.


In India, Burma or Australia you could at least build a quonset hut or something to keep them out of the rain part of the time.

Schweik said:

I suspect the reason they didn't is because it wasn't really feasible.

Click to expand...

Australian production was just a little too late for availability in large numbers, but the type was used in the hot humid climes of the theatre with the RAF. Mosquito recon aircraft operated out of India as early as 1943 and continued through until after the end of the war in the area, with the type being being operated from Seletar in Singapore until 1955. That said, the glue issues did arise, but a fix was found, also a temporary expedient in the form of an inspection door cut in the fuselage above the wing to inspect the internal structure.

Yeah but like I said - the conditions for the bases in the South Pacific were pretty extreme. Not only 45" - 60" of rain, high heat and humidity, and the occasional Typhoon, but also for the first year or two, at most of the airfields, no hangars. They barely had tents for the aircrews at some points.





In India or Australia you had quite a bit more land to choose from (i.e. they could try to find the best possible spot with the least rain, heat and humidity within a given zone of operations) and you had ample supplies, materials and a workforce so you could could build hangars .

Schweik said:

Yeah but like I said - the conditions for the bases in the South Pacific were pretty extreme.

Click to expand...

Yup, but like I said, they operated them in theatre consistently for over a decade. I'm not saying they didn't suffer issues, but clearly, where needs must.

Were they operating them without hangars, doing maintenance under the blue (or dark grey and rumbling) sky?

Schweik said:

Yeah but like I said - the conditions for the bases in the South Pacific were pretty extreme. Not only 45" - 60" of rain, high heat and humidity, and the occasional Typhoon, but also for the first year or two, at most of the airfields, no hangars. They barely had tents for the aircrews at some points.

View attachment 643908

View attachment 643909

In India or Australia you had quite a bit more land to choose from (i.e. they could try to find the best possible spot with the least rain, heat and humidity within a given zone of operations) and you had ample supplies, materials and a workforce so you could could build hangars .

Click to expand...

Hi
From my father's memoirs, setting up camp in CBI:

Moran is in top right corner of map:


Mike

Great stuff!

I'm sure they had rough fields in Burma, but when we talk about the Mosquito being active "In the region" in Australia, India etc., for ten years, are you suggesting they were operating in those kinds of conditions? Because I'm a bit doubtful.





This is Chabua Airfield in Assam, India. The second one is dated to 1944, I'm not sure about the first. No Mossies there that I know of, but they flew B-24s and C-46 / C-47s over The Hump from there. Note the large buildings. Not exactly the Taj Mahal but it's enough to keep some aircraft out of the rain if you needed to. Not saying all airfields in India had facilities like that either, because I know they didn't. But some did and if I was looking for a place to put some DH 98 Mosquitos, that is where they would go.

I have never seen buildings that substantial in Port Moresby, or Henderson Field. Maybe Espiritu Santo but that's 2200 km from Port Moresby, a bit far from the action, even for Mossies.

Regardless, de-lamination of wood and mysterious crashes seemed to plague the Mosquito in the CBI Theater in WW2, and I believe it would have been the same or worse in the Solomon Islands or New Guinea. Otherwise I'd say they really could have used a few squadrons of them.

Schweik said:

Were they operating them without hangars, doing maintenance under the blue (or dark grey and rumbling) sky?

Click to expand...

Does it matter what conditions they were operating under? I don't disagree with you in that they suffered the effects of the climate, we know for certain they did, what I am disagreeing with you is your preposition that they didn't operate there...

Schweik said:

A functioning squadron or two of Mossies could have been enormously helpful I think. I suspect the reason they didn't is because it wasn't really feasible.

Click to expand...

...Because they did, consistently for more than ten years in those conditions, which goes to prove that the effectiveness of the type at the task at hand was put first over the issues the type encountered in theatre.

Also, the types of airfields they were operating, I don't know for certain (I could look it up but I have an assignment due) but I can bet they weren't long concrete runways, huge heated hangars with concrete floors and air conditioned mess facilities for crews...

Well I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but I'll try to break it down.

1) Flying from India or Australia is not the same as flying from South Pacific Islands. Are you saying they flew Mosquitos from the Solomons?
2) During WW2, they had serious problems using Mosquitos in the CBI, and had to freeze operations for a time etc. Their efficacy seems to have been limited during WW2.
3) Postwar use of the Mosquito in places like Australia, India or even Malaysia etc. does not seem relevant to me for a variety of reasons.

I never suggested they had concrete runways, nor did they need heated anything in New Guinea, quite to the contrary. Their problem was heat and moisture. I'm saying in the islands there was no capacity for shelter (for aircraft) from the rain, whereas on the South Asian or Australian continent, there was this capacity, at least potentially. This is one reason why I don't think it's the same thing.

This seems really obvious to me. At some point we may just need to agree to disagree.

10 years includes a lot of post-war, when they DID have hangars, surfaced runways, etc.

Gents, The RAAF 's first mosquito sortie was flown by No.1 PRU on 1 June 1944. This unit was based at Coomalie Creek in the Northern Territory - a bush strip that I would consider primitive. Nothing like a RAAF permanent base found South with proper hangers, brick buildings etc. No.1 PRU's AO was Java, Surabaya, the Celebes, the Philippines, Borneo, Timor and the Islands North of Australia. On occasions, they operated detachments from Biak and Noemfoor. They were operating in harsh environments.
Coomalie Creek - 31 Squadron Association