Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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?
We need to define what a APHE bomb is.We're going to need to need to source or develop a 1,000 lb. APHE bomb.
More like the M41, which was a 20 pound fragmentation bomb usually wired together in clusters.A bomb-bay full of flechettes?
They were using the B-26 in low level bombing runs, not as a strafer.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.
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.
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.
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.
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)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.
Makes for one heck of a "what if", though.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
Because, without a tunnel, you end up with two parts of the aircraft that are basically inaccessible to the other.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.
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?Because, without a tunnel, you end up with two parts of the aircraft that are basically inaccessible to the other.