Grumman Avenger Ground Attack version for Europe?

I was under the impression that the Avenger did some dive bombing over the Pacific islands. Maybe glide bombing instead of the almost-vertical dive bombing. I was also under the impression that on Anti-submarine patrols they took rockets and a bomb load.
Avengers without the wing-folding would be stronger anyway.
I was thinking of the 9th Air Force's use of attack planes - front line support. Strike aircraft circling at relatively low altitude with higher fighter cover. Sort of like the Typhoons.
Anyway, I would think that the Avenger was cheaper than the Thunderbolt and why didn't they make a P-47 without the complicated turbo-supercharger for the attack mission?

TBF could carry a 2,000lb weapon in bomb bay. That's a significant point in favor of the aircraft for CAS as some army targets (i.e. Metz fortress complex) require a bomb of that size.

What you're talking about is an aircraft with more bomb load than a Fairey Battle but with essentially the same performance, and we know what happened to the F. Battle. You can't dive-bomb while dropping bombs from an enclosed bomb-bay unless you also add a bomb crutch, as in the SB2C.

Maxrobot1 said:

I was under the impression that the Avenger did some dive bombing over the Pacific islands. Maybe glide bombing instead of the almost-vertical dive bombing. I was also under the impression that on Anti-submarine patrols they took rockets and a bomb load.

Click to expand...

Not having heard of this I'd have to guess you're right on the glide-bombing simply because dive-bombing really is quite a little more involved. My Dad started out on SBDs and carrier-qualified on one of those before he moved up to the F6Fs. The F6F was also a crack dive-bomber. The thing about dive-bombing you don't experience in glide-bombing is the temporary blackouts or near-blackouts when you pull out of those sharp dives. Pilots tend to freak when they're unaccustomed to it which translated means when they don't have a lot of training in it. I don't know of any such training the Navy had on the TBF/TBMs. My Dad's buddy flew those. As an aside, his radioman was Paul Newman.

VBF-13 said:

The F6F was also a crack dive-bomber.

Click to expand...

The A-36 (a modified P-51) seemed to deliver respectable results, perhaps modified F6F's of F4U's would perform even better.

There was one experimental single seat Avenger. A rather crude job wit the turret removed and a 'fairing' replacing it and another one covering the lower gun position. Fprward armament was increase to three .50 cal guns. Speed increased less than 10mph.
The idea is NOT a good one. The bulk of the size and drag of an aircraft does not go away if you simply remove gun mounts/positions from an existing airframe. The Avenger had more square footage of wing area than an A-20. It was roughly 66% bigger than a P-47 wing. Almost 20% more wing than a Skyraider. It was roughly 500lbs heavier empty with a smaller, lighter engine than a P-47 and sticking a 2000hp engine in it is still going to leave it slow. Maybe a 6% increase in speed on top of whatever you get from better streamlining?

Enclosed bomb bays add speed and range to planes that have to go a fair distance ( carrier strike) BEFORE dropping the bombs. They add weight and bulk to short range aircraft, like tactical support. They limit top speed AFTER the bombs are dropped.

Avengers worked in the Pacific ( or had to be used) because the Japanese didn't have very good AA and they were available on the carriers. Using them in Europe against a much more numerous AA defense is going to result in higher losses.

A non starter. In the ETO, speed was paramount. The A20, P38, P47 and Typhoon were far superior to any type of level bombing the Avenger could offer.