P-38 as a bomber?

[Aozora]

Thanks again. Do you know something about historic bomb-runs made by B-25/26, that involved greater range, against, say, a 500-miles distant target and return to same base? Was the 2000 LB bomb ever used on the P-38s, the racks being allowed to carry those?
The P-38L with 300 gal drop tank offers some interesting numbers. After allowance (60 gals for warm-up, taxi, take off to 5000 ft) was accounted for, and with one drop tank (another is replaced with a bomb), it was capable for 1510 miles of range with 650 gals (ie. 300 gals in a DT and 350 gals internal; balance of 60 gals used as allowance). That's how they reached Ploesti (1000 lb bomb on another rack). The 300 gal drop tank (full) weighted 1887 lbs.



Seems like this one has both flexibility and range?

View attachment 248146

The first missions carried out by B-26 Marauders involved the 22nd BG carrying out raids on Rabaul, staging from airfields around Townsville, Australia via Port Moresby: 22nd Bomb Group - The Red Raiders

The distance from Townsville to Port Moresby is 676 miles - refuel Port Moresby; to Rabaul is then about 500 miles direct. AFAIK these were the longest missions carried out by B-26s. 2,000 lb bomb load + 1,212 gal fuel, including a 250 gal tank in the rear bomb bay.

 

[Greyman]

If the Mosquito is used in the same medium/ high altitude capacity as a P-38 "Droop Snoot," this is a mute point as during the bomb run the entire formation would have to slow down so the bomb load could be directed and dropped by the lead plane (I think a maximum bomb run speed for the Norton Bomb sight was 180 mph). This is what was done during the P-38 raids on Ploesti. Once bombs were released the lead aircraft with the bombardier left the area while the rest of the flight was free to engage fighters.

180 mph seems very low compared to all of the other sight information I have. All wartime British sights can go to about 300 mph TAS (240 for the pre-war CSBS).

 

[Shortround6]

Thanks for the numbers. The 'return range' of 500-700 miles + reserve would've been great for a heavy fighter pressed into bombers role. The later planes are always better than earlier, the earlier planes have better timing, however.

Not really better timing. When the "G"s were getting into combat The P-47s and P-51s were months away. In fact the "H" started to be produced in April of 1943 and the P-47 had yet to make it's first operational sortie over enemy territory. First P-51B is rolled out an flown in May of 1943. Until the late summer/fall of 1943 ever single P-38 in a combat zone was needed as a fighter.

"The Droop Snoot entered active service on 10 April 1944"

The P-51D was introduced into service with the 8th AIr Force in March of 1944.

The large scale use of P-38s as bombers comes after it is displaced as the top US fighter.

Well, B-25s hit shipping targets in the Greek Islands from North Africa. They hit Naples Italy from North Africa before Tunis was surrendered. I don't know what distances they were flying in the Pacific.

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for the feedback, Aozora

Not really better timing. When the "G"s were getting into combat The P-47s and P-51s were months away. In fact the "H" started to be produced in April of 1943 and the P-47 had yet to make it's first operational sortie over enemy territory. First P-51B is rolled out an flown in May of 1943. Until the late summer/fall of 1943 ever single P-38 in a combat zone was needed as a fighter.

"The Droop Snoot entered active service on 10 April 1944"

The P-51D was introduced into service with the 8th AIr Force in March of 1944.

The large scale use of P-38s as bombers comes after it is displaced as the top US fighter.

Again, fine points.
Seems like that P-38 was more constraint with numbers available, rather than with planes capabilities

Well, B-25s hit shipping targets in the Greek Islands from North Africa. They hit Naples Italy from North Africa before Tunis was surrendered. I don't know what distances they were flying in the Pacific.

Thanks. Tunis City and Bizerte are ~335 miles from Naples, 375 miles from Rome (plus some allowance for an Allied base closer to Algeria). Iraklion (Crete) is 370 miles from Benghazi (Libya), 400 miles from Alexandria. Tobruk/Cyrenaica are a bit closer to Greece than Benghazi.

BTW, can anyone shed some light about this modification, apart from what is written in the 'P-38 in action' book? I don't quite believe that another pair of drop tanks was shoehorned, but one never knows.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

180 mph seems very low compared to all of the other sight information I have. All wartime British sights can go to about 300 mph TAS (240 for the pre-war CSBS).

It doesn't mean bombs were accurately dropped at those speeds. At what altitudes and wind drift corrections? Were they operating Norden bombsights? What aircraft type? I believe the you'll find that some RAF bombers were limited on speeds they could even open their bomb bays and most were under 300 mph - the Mosquito if I remember correctly was limited to 320 mph indicated.

 

[tomo pauk]

320 mph indicated will be quite a speed for the bomb bay to be opened - circa 400 mph at 20000 ft?

Back to the P-38 - the tables state that, for the same range, the P-38 with DTs/bombs combinations will be cruising much faster with increase of altitude. Ie. with 2 x 165 gal drop tanks, the P-38H will have the range of 1630 miles whether it flies 236 mph at 15000 ft, or 269 mph at 25000 ft. The range of 1100 miles will be achieved with 288 miles at 15000 ft, or with 315 mph at 25000 ft. The tanks remain attached until return to the base; dropping them after both are empty gives another 100-200 miles, and the speed increases from between 272 to 343 mph at 25000 ft with engine in different cruising modes.
No allowance is calculated for the climb from 5000 ft to 15000 or 25000 ft, nor the reserve to return to base.

 

[bobbysocks]

how would the P-61 stack up against the 38? i read something somewhere that is was very comparable to the mossie. I never pursued to that indepth but it might nor do i know much about the plane. I do know they did make a long range ( drop tank ) version.

 

[tomo pauk]

The P-61 on internal fuel was capable for 1020-1050 miles, at 10000 ft on most economical speed, or somewhere between the earlier and later P-38s. Wth 2 x 165 gal drop tanks attached, the range is about 1400 miles, with 4 such tanks it's almost 1900 miles.
So with 2 x 1000 lbs bombs and 2 drop tanks, maybe 1300 miles, and with 3 drop tanks and a 1000 lb bomb maybe 1550? Max weight of a bomb was 1600 lb per rack. Does not seem like any better bomber than P-38?

 

[Shortround6]

Again the 1600lb bomb sounds impressive But I believe under 300 were dropped in Europe during the war. Unless you need to penetrate 5-6 in (12-15cm) of grade "B" armor steel it is pretty useless.

Try comparing the P-61 to the A-26 as they both used the same engines.

The A-26 held 800 US gallons in the wing tanks and could hold another 125 gal in a protected tank in the forward bomb bay. A 625 gal unprotected ferry tank would fit in the rear bomb bay. There may have been drop tanks as well. Sources don't seem to agree.
The P-61 Held 646 US gallons in the wing tanks.
The B-26 had 26 bomb stations in the bomb bay although only 16 can be used at the same time. They do allow for a variety of ordnance. Normal load was 4000lbs of bombs inside. How much the 125 gallon tank blocked things I don't know. WW II versions could also carry four 500lb bombs under the wings.

 

[OldSkeptic]

Not sure of the premise of this thread. the P-38 made an excellent (albeit expensive) fighter-bomber and had a very good record doing that. Good firepower, good range, able to carry a fair range of ordinance. Pretty fast and agile at low altitudes, could hold its own as a fighter if caught that way.

But as a pure bomber? Makes no sense. Hang too much outside and the performance and range drops (as per all fighter-bombers). So I'm not sure what the argument is about.

Plus what bomber do you compare it to, the US mediums (B-25s and so on), the Lanc, or the B-17 or the bomber version Mossies?

You really have to compare it as a fighter-bomber vs Typhoons, P-47s, Spits, Mustangs, FB Mossies, etc. As such it (AFAIK) it held up well. It's biggest weaknesses in this role were probably its size (a similar weakness to the Mossie as a FB) and cost (both in building and running).

Down on the deck, the fundamental flaw of the design, its miserable mach limit, was not an issue. It was pretty quick and probably (not sure of this though so I stand to be corrected) more manoeuvrable, especially in the vertical plane, than a P-47 (which was nearly as expensive to build). It probably (again I stand to be corrected) could carry a heavier load than a comparable P-47 of the time, quite possibly for further (in a permissible environment of course).

Could it maybe carry as much as the US medium bombers. Maybe close in weight, but not of course in numbers, but that is more a reflection of the poor performance of those 'bombers' than saying something great about the P-38, plus the performance hots would have been huge.. Heck, FW-190s were carrying 2,000lb+ bombs in 1943..... P-47s were carrying comparable bombs later (though they took half the length of the World to take off ...).

So good as a FB, albeit expensive. Able to 'hold its own' as they say.

 

[tomo pauk]

Again the 1600lb bomb sounds impressive But I believe under 300 were dropped in Europe during the war. Unless you need to penetrate 5-6 in (12-15cm) of grade "B" armor steel it is pretty useless.

Not sure whether the 1600 lb bomb would've been useful against fortifications, like the ones at Atlantic wall?

Try comparing the P-61 to the A-26 as they both used the same engines.

The A-26 held 800 US gallons in the wing tanks and could hold another 125 gal in a protected tank in the forward bomb bay. A 625 gal unprotected ferry tank would fit in the rear bomb bay. There may have been drop tanks as well. Sources don't seem to agree.
The P-61 Held 646 US gallons in the wing tanks.
The B-26 had 26 bomb stations in the bomb bay although only 16 can be used at the same time. They do allow for a variety of ordnance. Normal load was 4000lbs of bombs inside. How much the 125 gallon tank blocked things I don't know. WW II versions could also carry four 500lb bombs under the wings.

I'd say that everyone will agree that A-26 was far better bomber. As for the drop tank capability, it is, somewhat cryptically, listed in the 'standard aircraft characteristics' sheet of the aircraft, albeit the date of the SAC is 1950: here, scroll down a bit.

added: seem like the 125 gallon tank for the A-26, located above the bombs, would not interfere with a bomb load? Again, the pic is for the A-26C, dated in 1952.

 

[Shortround6]

Not sure of the premise of this thread. the P-38 made an excellent (albeit expensive) fighter-bomber and had a very good record doing that. Good firepower, good range, able to carry a fair range of ordinance. Pretty fast and agile at low altitudes, could hold its own as a fighter if caught that way.

But as a pure bomber? Makes no sense. Hang too much outside and the performance and range drops (as per all fighter-bombers). So I'm not sure what the argument is about.

Plus what bomber do you compare it to, the US mediums (B-25s and so on), the Lanc, or the B-17 or the bomber version Mossies?

I would leave the heavies out of a comparison. Even as bombers the planes don't really do the same job. Using the "what could it carry to Berlin yardstick" the P-38 comes up way short. But B-17s don't do close support well and don't strafe on the way back.

as for cost, A-20s went from $98-138,000 depending on model and contract. B-25s went from $139-172,000, B-26s from $200-306,000, A-26s about $235,000, B-17s $230-300,000 and B-24s $250-360,000. In many cases the lowest price was for the last models built. Contract for the A-26D was $181,000 per plane but the contract was canceled on VJ day.

You really have to compare it as a fighter-bomber vs Typhoons, P-47s, Spits, Mustangs, FB Mossies, etc. As such it (AFAIK) it held up well. It's biggest weaknesses in this role were probably its size (a similar weakness to the Mossie as a FB) and cost (both in building and running).

Not sure on the cost of running, two V-12s have 48 spark plugs. One R-2800 has 36 and the Typhoon has 48 spark plugs for it's one engine
Spark plugs are not the only thing but not ALL single engine fighters had the same maintenance costs either.

Down on the deck, the fundamental flaw of the design, its miserable mach limit, was not an issue. It was pretty quick and probably (not sure of this though so I stand to be corrected) more manoeuvrable, especially in the vertical plane, than a P-47 (which was nearly as expensive to build). It probably (again I stand to be corrected) could carry a heavier load than a comparable P-47 of the time, quite possibly for further (in a permissible environment of course).

For load the P-38 wins hands down and not until the P-47N does the P-47 show up well in range carrying bombs. But neither one can carry a pair of 1000lb bombs as far as a Mustang can with a rear tank.

Could it maybe carry as much as the US medium bombers. Maybe close in weight, but not of course in numbers, but that is more a reflection of the poor performance of those 'bombers' than saying something great about the P-38, plus the performance hots would have been huge.. Heck, FW-190s were carrying 2,000lb+ bombs in 1943..... P-47s were carrying comparable bombs later (though they took half the length of the World to take off ...).

You are back to the bomb load vs range argument, it doesn't matter what you can get off the ground if you can't reach the desired target with it. Most of the 'middle' B-17s had racks under the wing for a pair of bombs up to 4000lbs each and were 'rated' as carrying over 17,000lbs of bombs. They just had trouble reaching the French coast with such a load
Later versions often deleted the external racks because they were so seldom used in service.
German and Russian fighter bombers could carry bigger bombs/bomb loads in many cases because they were very close to the targets/front lines. Add a 100 mile overwater flight to and from the target and range gets a LOT more important. Sit in fixed/slow moving positions (Italian campaign) or even doing the North African shuffle and some fighter bombers wound up carrying some rather large loads (six 250lb bombs under a P-40).

So good as a FB, albeit expensive. Able to 'hold its own' as they say.

P-38s did a lot of good work as bombers but were often an expensive solution BUT one that was already in place. It could take months to deploy new squadrons with different aircraft from the US to the combat theaters. Or even months to re-equip existing squadrons with a different type of aircraft.
" The development work was carried out at Lockheed's modification centre at Langford Lodge, Northern Island" as was the modification of many (if not all?) of the droop snoots used in Europe.

 

[Shortround6]

Not sure whether the 1600 lb bomb would've been useful against fortifications, like the ones at Atlantic wall?

I am not sure either but you need direct hits on the target to punch through the concrete roof. The US 1600lb AP bomb carried 209-215lbs of explosive. The 500lb GP bomb carried 262lbs of explosive and the 1000lb GP bomb carried 530lbs. 2000lb carried 1061lbs or about 5 times the amount of explosive.

See; Aerial Bombs

for one chart.

added: seem like the 125 gallon tank for the A-26, located above the bombs, would not interfere with a bomb load? Again, the pic is for the A-26C, dated in 1952.

Thank you, the bomb bay tank may not interfere with the heavy bombs but may interfere with the carriage of multiple light bombs?

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for the bomb table. BTW, do you know what would be the dimensions of the US bombs?

I've checked out the 'Erection and maintenance manual for the A-26B and A-26C', last revision on 20th May 1945, and it does not mention the droppable fuel tanks (nor does it mention the wing guns) - that would be a pre-Korean war modification?

About this:

For load the P-38 wins hands down and not until the P-47N does the P-47 show up well in range carrying bombs. But neither one can carry a pair of 1000lb bombs as far as a Mustang can with a rear tank.

Seems like this bird might carry 2000 lbs for quite a distance, despite the drag penalty:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-38-bomber-39178.html#post1076564

 

[tomo pauk]

Back to the P-61 and A-26 - the P-61A and early P-61B were capable to carry up to 2 x 310 US gal drop tanks, while the later P-61Bs were able to carry 4 x 310 US gal DTs. So a P-61B with 2 x 1000 lbs and 2 x 310 DTs would've been quite a rangy bomber.
I've saw the 1st mention of the A-26 with drop tanks in a manual dated August 10th 1945, revised 24th January 1946.

 

[Shortround6]

The early P-61s had only two under wing mounting points. Either bombs or drop tanks (or one each?). Please remember that the P-61 needs most of one 310 gallon drop tank just to bring it's capacity up to what the A-26 was already carrying internally. 958 gallons for the P-61 with one tank vs 925 gallons for the A-26. A-26 is carrying twice the bomb load. with a pair of 155 gal drop tanks (as per drawing) it is less than 40 gallons behind the P-61 with two 310 gallon tanks.

Now if somebody has the range charts for a P-61 with under wing loads we might be able to figure what the P-61 could do.

 

[tomo pauk]

Seem like before VJ day that A-26 was not flying in combat with drop tanks*, unlike the P-61B-10 and later (the ones with 4 DTs)? With 4 x 165 DTs (1260 US gal total) it was capable for almost 1900 miles of range, at 10 kft and at most economical speed. Not sure whether the tanks are dropped once empty for this range calculation?
With 2 x 310 that would be about the same? The 2 x 1000 lbs bombs should trim that quite a bit? The 'return' of the turret and gunner again cuts the range, circa 100 miles, judging by the chart at the AHT.

*feedback on this is appreciated

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The Ploesti raid was not led by a droop snoot, it was a low level diving bombing attack. It also was a disaster for the 1st and 82nd fighter Groups. 93 aircraft took off, 21 aborted (23%) and 72 reached the target. Of those 72, 22 were shot down, a 31% loss rate, which equals the loss rate of the infamous B-24 raid. A couple of more missions like that and the P-38 force in the MTO would be wiped out. The damage to the refinery was minimal. It can best be termed a failed experiment.
The other thing to point out is the P-38s inflexibility in the munitions it could carry. In "Targeting the Reich" Robert S Ehlers notes that fire was the most effect means of destroying refineries. A mixed load was necessary. Instantaneous fused 500 lb bombs to spill the contents, incendiaries to ignite them and delayed fused bombs to hamper repair. He also notes that the RAF bomber command raids were more effective than USAAF raids for two reasons: they were more accurate (surprisingly) and the 4000 lb Blockbusters caused tremendous damage to structures, piping and electrical conduits. Ehlers by the way is a USAF historian.
Strategic bombers need to be able to attack a variety of targets such as factories refineries, marshaling yards, canals and yes even cities. Without the ability to carry mines. incendiaries and larger bombs the P-38 is a non starter in this role.

 

[tomo pauk]

During the disastrous B-24 bombing raid, the USAF lost 440 crew members KIA and 220 MIA-POW. Seems like the 82nd FG (those 46 P-38s actually carrying bombs; 1st FG was providing escort) lost only 8 crew members behind enemy lines, only 3 KIA. Maybe someone might add data about Ploesti/Romania air defense in 1943-44? We might only debate how great would've been the if USAF sent some other 46 aircraft instead of those P-38s to bomb Ploesti.
P-38 was able to carry a reasonable bomb load, for a non-bomber, bombs in calibre up to 2000 lb could've been fitted. Not that I reckon that it should've replaced B-17/24, but that's reasonable lift capacity for ww2.

 

[wuzak]

Is it true that there wasn't any reconnaissance performed shortly before the B-24 mission, on the grounds that it would tell the Romanians/Germans that they were coming?