North American's A-36 Apache - Not Fully Appreciated?

[aurora-7]

From what I've read (so far) about the A-36 Apache, it seems to have been a very effective weapon as an attack aircraft.

It's relatively shory combat history seems to be related to a rather high accident rate in training and the ventral air scoop, also an achiles heel to the P-51 variant, was more a pronounced weakness for a ground attack aircraft.

The dive brake design seems to have been a focus of a lot of controversy regarding the aircrafts effectiveness.

It strikes me as one of those aircraft, like the B-36 Marauder, that's very effective in the hands of experienced combat pilots but very dangerous to train newbie pilots in.

The rugged 'barge' (SBD) has long been my favorite of the type but the A-36 seems a very good blend of dive bomber-fighter-attack aircraft.

I'm I correct to understand that at 80+ confirmed kills (and one confirmed ace) the A-36 is the dive bomber with the most aerial kills?

Actually, I'd delete this thread if I could. I missed this thread form 2011 regarding the aircraft:

USAAC ground-attack/dive bomber (North American A-36 Apache)

But no one addressed the aerial kills there.

And I hope to one day see The Collins Foundation's flying A-36 someday at some airshow. With just 500 of the type made and removed from service before the war's end, it's amazing any are here today to be seen at all, let alone flyable examples.

 

[davebender]

80+ confirmed kills
I'll hazard a guess that several attack aircraft types including the Ju-87 have more than 80 confirmed kills.

 

[Shortround6]

Hmmm, A-36 with 500 built (how many deployed?) gets over 80 kills.
10 Typhoon squadrons (120-160 planes?) actually deployed damage 1 aircraft in two months while flying over 11,000 sorties.
With over 6,000 Ju-87 Stukas built (over 12 times the number of A-36s) the fact that it may have shot down more aircraft (how many by rear gunners?) needs a lot of detailed assessment before any sort of valid comparison can be made.

 

[aurora-7]

I'm getting the impression that aircraft as specialized as the A-36 were not as desired as a purpose made fighter that could have the same attack capabilities. Dive bombers never seemed to catch on with the Army Air Corps as they did with the US Navy.

The 36's were eventually replaced with P-40s and 47's.

 

[Shortround6]

It is part timing, part doctrine and part combat experience.

A ship, even a destroyer, is a large target compared to a bunker, or strong point or even an artillery battery. A ship is also a high value target. Again, a destroyer takes hundreds of men between 1 to two years (at best) to build NOT including armament and engines/boilers, other supplied parts. larger ships obviously require even more investment. To the Navy dive bombers looked like a good way to get hits on maneuvering ships using small numbers of planes. There was only so much payload you were going to get off the deck using 800-1000hp engines.

950hp engine and in service on US carriers in 1939 and lasted until the spring of 1942 on one carrier.
Fighter using the same engine. and it lasted until well into 1941 on some carriers.

If the dive bombers couldn't sink big ships (500lb bomb?) they could damage them and make it easier for the torpedo planes(theory/doctrine).

Most armies had absolute crap for AA defense in the 1930s so most anything looked good as an attack plane.
The US Army then got involved with two/three campaigns after Pearl Harbor that changed their outlook. In South East Asia and in in New Guinea the ranges from available airbases to target areas were a stretch for single engined planes or at least the single engine ones they had available. North Africa had shorter ranges but the AA defenses of some armies of 1942 were an order of magnitude better than the AA defenses of the armies of 1938. Long/slow (comparatively) diving attacks against low value targets defended by 20mm and 37mm automatic guns didn't seem like a good option.

Navy dive bombers got bigger and faster, mono-planes and 1100-1200hp engines and then 1700-1900hp engines leading 2000lb loads. While the army decided that if they were going to field squadrons of planes thousands of miles from the US with all the involved ground support personnel using longer ranged twin engine planes in some theaters made more sense and using fighter bombers for close support (with shallower, faster attack profiles) also made more sense than specialized single engine attack planes. The use of 12-1300hp engines in later P-40s helped as did construction battalions that could rapidly build adequate sized air fields. A little appreciated component of airpower. A few hundred (or few thousand) more feet of runway can do wonders for the ability of a small winged fighter to get a large bomb load of the ground.

Martson matting " A runway two hundred feet wide and 5000 feet (1500 m) long could be created within two days by a small team of engineers." This may over state things a bit but US forces could rapidly build large runways with a better surface than packed earth (although earth/sand/coral was often placed on top of the steel planks).

Papua New Guinea Sept 1942.

Yes P-47s (2000HP + )could carry carry large bomb loads for a fighter but they needed a runway around 3000ft long to get air borne let alone clear a 50ft obstacle.

There are a lot of factors that enter into aircraft use and with aircraft taking 3-4 years to develop, manufacture and deploy the conditions that the initial requirement/design was supposed to address could have changed radically.

 

[aurora-7]

It seems just as the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver came into front line service the need for naval dive bombers was diminishing. Fewer targets meant the specialized type was less needed and it's successor, the Douglas Skyraider, became more of a general attack aircraft as a level bomber with dive bombing capability.

I think the unexpected mission requirements that arose in the restricted warfare theaters of Korea and Vietnam highlighted the need for low/slow ground attack aircraft would last longer in the new jet age than was anticipated. While the Navy had the Skyraider to take them into the next decade, they Air Force had to borrow some to have until A-10s were developed. The AF had the A-37 Dragonfly but that seemed to be limited in it's use.

With the F-35 coming on-line, the type (flying low and slow) maybe finally becoming extinct.

 

[pinehilljoe]

Remember the A-36 was somewhat a product of the bureaucracy. When the Mustang was rolled out in '42, the USAF wanted to start production, but all fighter budgets for the Fiscal Year were obligated. Attack aircraft funds were available, used and the A-36 was born. The Mustang in some form got into production in FY42.

Wings/Airpower did an article on the A-36. You will sometimes see it refered to as the Apache, the Mustang and the Invader. Their account of how the Invader was coined was during the Italian Campaign, a pilot said , hey we're invading, lets call it the Invader. Maybe its more legend than fact?

 

[GregP]

Regarding post #6, I hope they don't become extinct. Time and again it has been proven that fast jets can't hit pinpoint targets in support of ground troops. Only something that can come over and SEE what needs to be hit can get it done.

If there are no friendlies around, fast jets are fine. For close air support, say within 50 yards, they just don't make the grade, smart weapons notwithstanding.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

[QUOTE="aurora-7, post: 1304529]

With the F-35 coming on-line, the type (flying low and slow) maybe finally becoming extinct.[/QUOTE]

Mark my words; when the F-35 takes over CAS and the A-10s have all been scrapped, the lessons of the past will come back to bite the USAF in the ass! As GregP said: fast movers just don't make the grade for "down and dirty" work. Especially not at a bazillion dollars a copy!

 

[pinehilljoe]

We'll never know how the A-10 would have done in the combat zone it was designed for. The Soviets never came down through the Fulda Gap. On paper it looks good, and the Legend is strong, but could it have survived the environment better than the F-4, Tornado and F-15 in the 80's?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

We'll never know how the A-10 would have done in the combat zone it was designed for. The Soviets never came down through the Fulda Gap. On paper it looks good, and the Legend is strong, but could it have survived the environment better than the F-4, Tornado and F-15 in the 80's?

True enough, but the fact is, it's done well in every environment it's encountered so far. Like most planes it hasn't gotten to play exactly its intended role but it's versatility has made it a valuable weapon "down in the weeds". Fulda Gap or not, it has destroyed the very weapons it was designed to counter, just in a different arena, and gone on to wreak havoc in ways it's designers never envisioned. (Full disclosure here) I worked for a time at the plant that later built the A-10's cannon, so I might be a wee bit prejudiced!

 

[Shortround6]

It was designed to be more survivable and more easily repaired (fewer spare parts as many were reversible from left to right side of the aircraft. Engines were a number of feet apart making harder (but certainly not impossible) to take out both with a single "hit". This is more important from the AA missile standpoint especially the small ones like the Strella. Cockpit was supposed to be resistant to 23mm rounds. Type of round and angle of impact not stated. Some sources claim 1200lbs of titanium armour around cockpit.

engines

F4 engines

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Sturmovik redux!

 

[GregP]

I'd like to see a modern compeition for a forward air support platform and to see what whould be offered if that were the primary mission instead of a multi-mission airframe. It might be able to go fast, but would HAVE to be able to go slow, too. Also, the avionics and weapons availble today are rather spectacular when compared with 40 years ago.

Who knows ... we may see something like that.

I bet Trump doesn't allow the F-35 to go on with full production, so SOMETHING sort of needs to come along. It will be interesting to watch and see what develops. I know what I'd do, but it is meaningless. All that matters is what happens, and we'll all get to see it play out. I hope the qualification for General stops being great skill with PowerPoint presentations / being politically correct, and moves more toward operational excellence.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I hope the qualification forGeneral stops being great skill with PowerPoint presentations / being politically correct, and moves more toward operational excellence.

Guess we need another all-out war, then. Operational excellence will never outweigh politics in "peacetime". It takes a war to bring the war-fighters to the top. Until then, the battlefields are the committee rooms, the media, and the twitterverse.

 

[GregP]

Sad, but oh so true ...

Let's not hope for that.

 

[pinehilljoe]

Like CAS, what made the Navy give up its organic ASW capability in the carrier wings, when the S-3 was retired without a replacement.

 

[Shortround6]

The Navy may plan to use one or more attack subs as "escorts" for a carrier group. At least it is a possibility.
I have no idea what other assets can be used for CAS (and I don't believe helicopters are a decent replacement.)

 

[buffnut453]

Why oh why do people keep saying that the F-35 is taking over the CAS role from the A-10 as if the Hog is the only airframe doing CAS? The A-10 has made up 12-24% of all CAS missions in recent conflicts - that's less than a quarter, folks. Put it the other way, more than three quarters of CAS missions are being performed by fast air and heavy bombers. The F-35 isn't "taking over" the CAS mission; it's adding to the existing assets that do CAS (F-16, F-15, B-1, B-52 and even F-22). CAS is a mission. The A-10 is a platform that performs CAS. Please let's not confuse the two.

Guess we need another all-out war, then. Operational excellence will never outweigh politics in "peacetime". It takes a war to bring the war-fighters to the top. Until then, the battlefields are the committee rooms, the media, and the twitterverse.

You clearly haven't met many of the current crop of senior-ranking generals then. Every one that I've met (both Army and Air Force, conventional and SF) are 100% committed to the front line and delivering effect in the operational environment. They know and understand that we ARE at war and that we have been for 20 years or more. To suggest that they're simply faceless bureaucrats who don't understand what's happening at the front lines does them and the entire military a great disservice.

If we do have an all-out war against a technologically advanced enemy, then the A-10 will be dead meat. It simply cannot survive in a high-threat environment. Modern double-digit SAMs are a far different proposition compared to the threats envisaged in the Fulda Gap scenario. The irony is that the A-10 can only operate in relatively benign threat environment...which begs the question about cheaper alternatives that don't have all the extra armour, which they don't need because of the (relatively) low-threat environment.

 

[Shortround6]

Lancasters and B-17s did CAS in WW II on occasion, doesn't mean they were much good at it.

However using stand-off munitions is probably a better way of dealing with ground targets than getting down and dirty (gun range).
If you can hit them with a gun then they can hit you.

It takes a lot of armed pick up trucks to equal the cost of one A-10.