Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

[fastmongrel]

I tried, I really did.

We're going to need to need to source or develop a 1,000 lb. APHE bomb.

Interesting page about air munitions in the Pacific. It covers US and Japanese AP bombs

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Bombs

 

[SaparotRob]

Nice link!

 

[Admiral Beez]

Made the Me 262 with the intended yet unobtanium metals and you've got a reliable interceptor.

 

[GrauGeist]

But you do have P-51s available to suppress flak. A swarm of small, fast, agile fighters seems a better choice than big, lumbering, very heavy bombers. If guns aren't enough, load the fighters up with HVARs or fragmentation bombs.

Or, get drop tanks and/or auxiliary bomb bay tanks onto the B-25s to extend their range.

Odd...we can send in bombers with escort and we can send in fighters in ground attack. We can even send in B-25s but we can't send in a B-32.

Is there something different about the B-32 that sets it aside from the B-17, B-24, B-25 and B-29 that I'm not aware of?

 

[33k in the air]

Is there something different about the B-32 that sets it aside from the B-17, B-24, B-25 and B-29 that I'm not aware of?

It's much bigger and far less maneuverable than twin-engine mediums or single-engine fighters? There's also not a lot of them. Saturating a target with many attackers helps split up the defender's fire.

If you could turn the B-32 into a stand-off gun platform like the AC-130 gunship, that might be well worth it. (Not sure if the technology of the time could support the concept, though.)

 

[swampyankee]

Odd...we can send in bombers with escort and we can send in fighters in ground attack. We can even send in B-25s but we can't send in a B-32.

Is there something different about the B-32 that sets it aside from the B-17, B-24, B-25 and B-29 that I'm not aware of?

It's what you're positing it being used for. Something like bombardment or minelaying (something B-29s did to quite significant, albeit largely unheralded, result) would be perfectly reasonable. Strafing would not be, especially as carrier-based and land-based fighters and attack aircraft were quite capable of doing so, and both actually did attack land targets in Japan's home islands.

 

[GrauGeist]

The B-32 conducted photo recon missions over the home islands and fared well.

For contrast, the B-25 was close to 100 miles an hour slower than the B-32 (which was rated at 330mph at 10,000 feet with a bombload) and I'm fairly sure that if the B-32 were to be used in a ground attack role, it would be accompanied by fighter escort.

Considering the armament layout of the B-25 and A-26 gunships, it would have been interesting to see the B-32 gunship proposal layout.

 

[Greg Boeser]

But you do have P-51s available to suppress flak. A swarm of small, fast, agile fighters seems a better choice than big, lumbering, very heavy bombers. If guns aren't enough, load the fighters up with HVARs or fragmentation bombs.

Or, get drop tanks and/or auxiliary bomb bay tanks onto the B-25s to extend their range.

The B-25s flying out of the Aleutians were doing just that.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

As the Allied fleet approached Okinawa, they came under savage air attack, both conventional and by Kamikaze, resulting in considerable damage and loss.
The Japanese air elements were not only coming from Okinawa, but bases on the southern home island of Kyushu 500 miles to the north.
For the invasion of the home islands, the Allied fleet would come under the gauntlet of the same, but intensified attacks.
So pre-invasion bombing/ground attack missions would be a must and it would be up to the long range air elements from Okinawa to lead the way and scour every square inch of soil, leaving no stone unturned.

Operation Downfall and all it involved would have made Operation Overlord look like a Sunday outing at the beach.

Agreed, I wasn't trying to say it'd be anything near a picnic. But I agree with 33k in the air , that big, low, and slow would add to the casualty rolls without adding much combat capability. Wasn't this the same reasoning behind not using the A-26 much in ground support in ETO?

 

[GrauGeist]

Agreed, I wasn't trying to say it'd be anything near a picnic. But I agree with 33k in the air , that big, low, and slow would add to the casualty rolls without adding much combat capability. Wasn't this the same reasoning behind not using the A-26 much in ground support in ETO?

Again, the B-32 was one of the fastest bombers for it's size of that time.
It was faster than the B-25 and B-26 and it's speed was comparable to the A-26.

The A-20, A-26, B-25 and P-61 all conducted ground attack in the ETO.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

But at what altitudes? And is it maneuverable enough to line up an low-level attack run? Or are we talking medium-level bombing?

 

[GrauGeist]

But at what altitudes? And is it maneuverable enough to line up an low-level attack run? Or are we talking medium-level bombing?

It was proposed to make the B-32 a gunship (strafer) like the A-20, B-25 and A-26s were.

And like the strafers, it would make a hot pass, hosing anything in it's path.

I'm simply playing Devil's advocate here, the idea of a monster gunship intrigues me and when I first heard the idea, it occurred to me that the B-32, of all the heavy bombers made, could actually pull it off.
Also, considering the B-25s and A-26s had over a dozen foreward-firing .50MGs (even a few cases of up to eighteen), I tried to imagine just how many .50s (or 20mm, like the P-61) could be applied. Especially since it would not be carrying bombs.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It was proposed to make the B-32 a gunship (strafer) like the A-20, B-25 and A-26s were.

And like the strafers, it would make a hot pass, hosing anything in it's path.

I'm simply playing Devil's advocate here, the idea of a monster gunship intrigues me and when I first heard the idea, it occurred to me that the B-32, of all the heavy bombers made, could actually pull it off.
Also, considering the B-25s and A-26s had over a dozen foreward-firing .50MGs (even a few cases of up to eighteen), I tried to imagine just how many .50s (or 20mm, like the P-61) could be applied. Especially since it would not be carrying bombs.

Gosh, that just doesn't sound healthy to me.

 

[GrauGeist]

Gosh, that just doesn't sound healthy to me.

Agreed.
In the forum's "B-25 weapons" thread, there's a few photos of a B-25 that had eight nose-mounted .50s, two cheek packs (one per side with two .50s) and the upper turret locked forward = 14 .50MGs and these strafers raped Japanese shipping and ground targets.

Just imagine what could be done with a much larger platform.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Agreed.
In the forum's "B-25 weapons" thread, there's a few photos of a B-25 that had eight nose-mounted .50s, two cheek packs (one per side with two .50s) and the upper turret locked forward = 14 .50MGs and these strafers raped Japanese shipping and ground targets.

Just imagine what could be done with a much larger platform.

I get that, the thing that worries me is that the -32 has to be much less nimble, and a much bigger target carrying more aircrew.

The idea of a bomb-bay fuel tank on a -25 or -26 as mentioned above strikes me as more doable, but I'm no expert and defer to opinions better-informed. About 1100 miles round-trip Okinawa-Kyushu, no? Forsaking any bombs and burning that extra fuel first (once in cruise) might work if you can bring the plane's radius up by about 40%. I'm just spit-ballin', don't rake me over the coals!

 

[GrauGeist]

It was about 500 miles from Okinawa to the southern air bases on Kyushu, so yes, figuring 1,100 miles is a solid number.

Historically, the strafers used to come in low and fast on their targets, hitting them hard and keeping their speed up to reduce chances of being hit by ground fire and they weren't doing much in the way of wild maneuvering during the process.

It should also be noted that the B-29s would come in low and fast during their bombing runs over Tokyo and other cities when they were fire-bombing - if memory serves right, some missions were as low as 5,000 AGL.

 

[SaparotRob]

That's right. I forgot the B-29's missions changed to low and fast at night.
If there were such a B-32 strafer mission, could a variety of fighters (sea and air) have been used for escort in relay? To minimize carriers exposure to land based air power?

Just how many wing mounted gun pods do you think that monster could carry?

 

[GrauGeist]

That's right. I forgot the B-29's missions changed to low and fast at night.
If there were such a B-32 strafer mission, could a variety of fighters (sea and air) have been used for escort in relay? To minimize carriers exposure to land based air power?

Just how many wing mounted gun pods do you think that monster could carry?

I'm sure that P-51s and P-47s would the workhorses of the show regardless of who was going in.

As far as weapons...Lord have mercy, where to start?
Batteries of .50MGs or 20mm cannon or even perhaps some 37mm cannon?
With a solid nose, a savage battery of .50s could be installed, perhaps supplemented with 20mm cannons in the mix.
Also perhaps an option like was done with the Ju88 and IL-2, with weapons mounted beneath firing down and forward at an angle.

Maybe equip it with a full strafing battery and pack one of the bomb bays with anti personnel bomblets for good measure when making passes behind the beach-heads and trenches?

 

[gumbyk]

Maybe equip it with a full strafing battery and pack one of the bomb bays with anti personnel bomblets for good measure when making passes behind the beach-heads and trenches?

A bomb-bay full of flechettes?

 

[33k in the air]

The A-20, A-26, B-25 and P-61 all conducted ground attack in the ETO.

But not in the same style as was done in the Pacific.

There were a couple of attempts early on to use B-26s in the ETO in the same manner as the strafer B-25s in the Pacific. But the much more capable and numerous German low-level flak chewed up such raids. The result was the switch to bombing from medium altitudes.

In the forum's "B-25 weapons" thread, there's a few photos of a B-25 that had eight nose-mounted .50s, two cheek packs (one per side with two .50s) and the upper turret locked forward = 14 .50MGs and these strafers raped Japanese shipping and ground targets.

Just imagine what could be done with a much larger platform.

Seems to me one has much greater tactical flexibility with two or three attack B-25s or A-26s than one B-32 gunship.

Swarming the target has its advantages.