Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better (3 Viewers)

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

5000 AGL is a bit higher than what the -25s &-20s were pulling in SoWasPac, and though they weren't doing aerobatics, from what I've read they were indeed kicking rudder for spray and targeting, and a B-32 just isn't going to be as responsive, I don't think.

A strafing mission a la A-20/B-25 tactics was what, 500 AGL tops? Asking a plane 1.5x as long and wide to pull that off is asking for a lot of trouble. I'd rather mod a plane that's already shown its ability to perform the mission rather than introduce a new plane as an experiment in the big show.

Hell, use the B-32 for photo-recon (as we did in August 45) in order to identify targets for the strafers/GA aircraft -- i.e., as a force-multiplier rather than a direct-attack weapon. Identify dumps, hidden strips, etc, and let Kenney's kids do what they did best. Better than retraining B-32 crews for a difficult mission, to my thinking.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

And just so we're clear, I'm liking this as a thought-experiment and enjoying what it's making me think, as well.

 

[33k in the air]

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?

According to the Characteristics Summary of the B-25J bomber version, with 1,137 gallons of fuel, 4,000 lbs of bombs, and a mission altitude of 10,000 feet, the aircraft had a combat radius of 685 nautical miles (788 statute miles).

According to the Characteristics Summary of the A-26B attack version, with 1,360 gallons of fuel, 4,000 lbs of bombs, and a mission altitude of 10,000 feet, the aircraft had a combat radius of 860 nautical miles (989 statute miles).

 

[Shortround6]

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

We need to define what a APHE bomb is.

Armor
Piercing
High
Explosive

Was term often used in artillery or tank gun ammunition.
Less so in naval guns, they had different terminology even if perhaps the intent was the same.
For bombs the criteria was way, way different.

Converting naval shells to bombs was a somewhat cheap way to get a small number of bombs in a hurry.
I say somewhat cheap because it took an awful lot of machining on the body of the shell to make even a 1/2 way satisfactory bomb. It was faster than designing and building a new bomb casing of forged steel however. Or depended upon the ability (or inability) to provide quality forgings of the appropriate size. The Japanese AP bombs converted from 16 in naval shells were almost 500lbs lighter than the parent shell. The interior of the shell was bored out and accommodated around twice the explosive.

The British 500lb SAP (Semi Armor Piercing) held 18% explosive by weight.

Naval AP shells were most often between 2 and 4 % HE content. Some navies may have used the term APHE, others used the term "common" shell and some used SAP. HE content was from about 4% to a bit over 6%. These were base fused. Naval HE shells often were nose fused and the HE content was usually between 6% and 10%.

The British used a lot of crappy bombs in the early part of the war. Not only were there no 1000lb bombs but the standard British HE bomb design, the G.P. Series was about 29-31% explosive by weight. The US GP bombs and the German SC series were around 50% explosive by weight. The British got to this level with the M.C. series of bombs. (Medium Case). But the 1000lb MC bomb didn't go into production until the spring of 1943.
The British seemed to be obsessed with using the cheapest steel they could for bomb bodies and artillery shells. Cheap may be good but not if you have to fire (or drop) a lot more shells/bombs to get the same target effect.

Back to the Skua dive bomber. With a better engine it probably could have carried a bigger bomb, heck, just put a constant speed prop on it might have done wonders for load carrying ability. Now do a reality check and figure out the most likely target/s. The Twins and the Bismarck or the 3 pocket battleships, several heavy cruisers, 6-7 light cruisers, 20-30 destroyers plus large torpedo boats. You only need AP bombs for the first 3. AP bombs might just go right through the light cruisers and smaller.
A 1000lb bomb with 50% explosive will cause major damage to most ships if it gets through even one un-armored deck before exploding. They are very dangerous in the case of a near miss (very near) as that is as much or more explosive than many aerial torpedoes used. Damage from 5-10ft away is going to be very similar to a torpedo hit.
You can't really plan on it but it does increase the target area a bit.

 

[GrauGeist]

A bomb-bay full of flechettes?

More like the M41, which was a 20 pound fragmentation bomb usually wired together in clusters.

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

They were using the B-26 in low level bombing runs, not as a strafer.
Many of the medium bombers used that conducted low level bombing attacks in Europe and the Med suffered a high attrition rate until they changed to more medium altitudes.

 

[Shortround6]

German low level AA was in a whole different category from Japanese low level AA.
Both in quality and quantity. Not saying the Japanese were ineffective but the losses should have been lower.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

German low level AA was in a whole different category from Japanese low level AA.
Both in quality and quantity. Not saying the Japanese were ineffective but the losses should have been lower.

I don't think the Japanese had anything the quality of German static, or especially mobile, low-level AA. But large targets flying low throws a wrench into it.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Japanese Anti-Air Defenses over their cities did account for quite a few Allied losses - not on the scale of the German's 88s or 120s, but they were there.

 

[33k in the air]

Did the technology exist in 1945 to turn a B-29 or B-32 into a AC-130 style gunship? Obviously infrared sensors are off the table, but were airborne-capable optical sights of the time good enough? Radar-directed options as well perhaps?

 

[33k in the air]

They were using the B-26 in low level bombing runs, not as a strafer.
Many of the medium bombers used that conducted low level bombing attacks in Europe and the Med suffered a high attrition rate until they changed to more medium altitudes.

Yeah, I meant low-level bombing aspect to it.

Although it's interesting to note the USAAF B-26s had their four 'package' side .50-cal MGs mounted, which would be of little value in medium altitude bombing. (I recall reading the 'package' guns were retained by the USAAF but were removed from RAF-operated Marauders.)

 

[GrauGeist]

The Germans had several infrared systems like the ZG 1229 and ZG 1250 and the Allies had the TABBY systems, but for aerial aiming, I'm not sure the ranges needed for viable targeting were technologically available at the time.

 

[MiTasol]

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

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.

I think that would depend on where they put the guns. All in the nose probably not so many unless they used fuel ballast tanks (down the back and keep them full until the ammo is used).

This is common now but would probably have been a first if done then

 

[MiTasol]

I don't think the Japanese had anything the quality of German static, or especially mobile, low-level AA. But large targets flying low throws a wrench into it.

agreed though for the first couple of days the gunners would have been confused by the size and especially speed and screwed up their lead allowances. Lead as in angle not lead as in weight (gosh I love English with its same word totally different meanings)

 

[GrauGeist]

I think that would depend on where they put the guns. All in the nose probably not so many unless they used fuel ballast tanks (down the back and keep them full until the ammo is used).

This is common now but would probably have been a first if done then

Makes for one heck of a "what if", though.
Not only figuring proper outfitting of weaponry, but how to employ it.
Since it had great range, the approach to the target area would be open to quite a few possibilities.

 

[pbehn]

There are model kits of rocket projectors that they fitted in B-24 bomb bays, I havnt found a picture of the actual thing though.

 

[Zipper730]

Why? Its operating altitude was much lower than B-29 and B-29 ops from March 1945 to EOW showed that high altitude ops were less effective over Japan than traditional ETO ops.

Because, without a tunnel, you end up with two parts of the aircraft that are basically inaccessible to the other.

 

[drgondog]

Because, without a tunnel, you end up with two parts of the aircraft that are basically inaccessible to the other.

So tell me again why B-32 needs a tunnel? for same design altitudes as B-24 and B-17 - which did not have tunnels?

 

[Zipper730]

The B-17 and B-24 far as I know have passage ways between the forward and rear compartments. The catwalk over the bomb-bay on those planes does the job

 

[GrauGeist]

The B-32 had a catwalk similar to the B-24's