Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes they could but most often they carried just the two bombs. The sea furies were usually the rocket carriers which they usually combined with 20mm suppression fire covering for the firefliesI thought the Fireflies carried more than 2000lbs. I have seen photos of them carrying 2 x 1000 lbers and 8 x 3inch rockets.
You make a good point. When you look at it that way, it makes more sense to use a "light bomber" or a "heavy fighter" in the ground attack role, rather than a dedicated dive bomber.The Army A-24s that saw combat in the Java/ New Guinea area were equivalent to SBD-3s. They had the 1000hp engines (take-off rating). They had problems operating over the Owen Stanley mountains. The pilots had little training in dive bombing and coordination with fighter units was often not up to par (read they were not getting fighter escorts). This may have soured the Army on dive bombers. Single engine bombers operating in that theater may not have returned much target effect for the investment needed in logistics. A squadron of A-20s may not have required that many more ground crew than a squadron of A-24s and the A-20s could carry several times the bomb load further. SBD-3s were only supposed to have 140-150 gallons of fuel when carrying a 500lb bomb and only 100 gallons when carrying a 1000lb bomb.
...doesn't make any difference. It was the design of the airplane that made it a weak in the ground attack role.Actually, very few A-36s survived the war - and the P-51 that saw service in Korea were latewar models, being very much different in performance and design.
The ground attack champion in Korea was the Douglas A-1 (itself rooted in WWII) which did use ground attack doctrine learned during WWII.
...doesn't make any difference. It was the design of the airplane that made it a weak in the ground attack role.
The A-1 was the ultimate development of propeller-driven ground attack / dive bomber aircraft.
Many Vietnam-era vets have a special place in their hearts for Sandy.
Elvis
You make a good point. When you look at it that way, it makes more sense to use a "light bomber" or a "heavy fighter" in the ground attack role, rather than a dedicated dive bomber.
Good post, Shortround! =)
...please allow me to show you...
View attachment 509198
...water cooled powerplant. Where is the radiator located?
Susceptible to small arms fire and "splash back" caused by exploding ordinance. My dad, who was a Korea-era vet, told me this was a well-known problem and the plane was not used very much in that role, because of that.
Picture courtesy of Aircorps Aviation.com
Elvis
The A-36 (of which only 500 were built), which was a dedicated dive-bomber, was very effective in it's role....doesn't make any difference. It was the design of the airplane that made it a weak in the ground attack role.
The A-1 was the ultimate development of propeller-driven ground attack / dive bomber aircraft.
Many Vietnam-era vets have a special place in their hearts for Sandy.
Elvis
...if the P/F-51 was such a stellar ground attack aircraft, then why was it pulled from that duty before the end of the Korean conflict...
Would you like the one word answer?
Jets.