FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And that's precisely why the A-20 was utilized. A twin engine light bomber that was fast, accurate and easy to maintain, it fit it's role perfectly and its apparent it accomplish it "above expectations."syscom3 said:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And that's precisely why the A-20 was utilized. A twin engine light bomber that was fast, accurate and easy to maintain, it fit it's role perfectly and its apparent it accomplish it "above expectations."syscom3 said:Too many resources would have been expended to fly them to bomb low value targets.
My pleasure! It seems the 409th and 410th BGs were sh*t hot and did their job extremely well. There seems to be no indication that the 9th AF command was dis-satisfied with the A-20s performance, even as they awaited the arrival of the A-26. I'd like to see 2nd TAF data on the A-20 (Boston) as it compares to the 9th AF....plan_D said:Thank you, Joe, for providing the first piece of extensive information on the US Ninth Air Force on this thread. I've been waiting for it from the start. If I were at home I could back up the usage of the Boston in 2nd TAF service. And I will do as soon as the oppurtunity arises, and I get home and research further into my books.
Becuase that was the plan from the get go....syscom3 said:Of all the bomb groups in the 9th and 12th AF''s, seems like the A20's were chosen to be converted faster than the other groups.
Yes it did, along with other WW2 air combat doctrine that would no longer be valid in the jet age.syscom3 said:And of course, after WW2, the multi-engined light bomber concept dissapeared from the AF.
But you have nothing to prove that with! I've already shown that the 410th BG was probably the most accurate BG in the whole ETO! Neither the P-47 or the P-38 accomplished their mission at night, had the capability of carrying extra radio, radar or navigation equipment without major modification and only the P-38 could offer the twin engine safety factor of its lay out but then again the A-20 had recips in lieu of in-line engines, an argument you brought up before about the Lanc and B-24!!! I also see you're skirting the issue, you once again CANNOT prove that anyone wasn't satisfied with the A-20 or that it was "underperforming."syscom3 said:The P38's and P47's were inherintly better than the A20's as they were multi-role, could dive bomb for better accuracy and carried a fair sized payload.
syscom3 said:Of all the bomb groups in the 9th and 12th AF''s, seems like the A20's were chosen to be converted faster than the other groups.
And of course, after WW2, the multi-engined light bomber concept dissapeared from the AF.
The P38's and P47's were inherintly better than the A20's as they were multi-role, could dive bomb for better accuracy and carried a fair sized payload.
Well well, syscom finally admitted it!!!The 9thcould have converted those three A20 groups to B26's, or one of the fighter bombers AND BEEN EVEN MORE EFFECTIVE!
All graphics and images used at this website created for or from the game:
"B17 - Flying Fortress, The Mighty 8th"
YEP!! As I posted earlier, 9th AF A-20s flew several night missions in Feb 1945, using B-26's as flare planes, an A-26 for target marking, and the A-20s to bomb the objectives. And this aircraft was supposed to be underperforming?? HA!lesofprimus said:Yea Joe, the A-20 tactics are right on the money.... We sure are proving that the A-20 wasnt useless, and that it accomplished its job effectively, accuratly and safely....
However, the excitement of the work we were doing made up for a lot. The days were divided into four watches with two of us on each, working together with two WAAF sergeants. As the sightings from the RADAR units came in, we plotted the information and had to calculate and extrapolate the trajectory of the rocket's path back to its launching sight. Speed was of the essence. We had to do it in less than five minutes. The mark 4 rockets were launched from mobile launch pads, two at a time. From the moment of launch, it took only ten minutes before the launch vehicles were ready to move off to another location. This allowed us up to 5 minutes to work out the estimated launch site and have it analysed. We didn't have the luxury of calculators, let alone computers - only pencils and paper and slide rules. The information was passed on to the Mosquito aircraft. They were equipped with torpedo type bombs and patrolled in sections constantly over the likely launch areas in NE Holland. Given the possible location, they were able to target and destroy the launchers.
Not all the RADAR information or our calculations were completely accurate but the operation was a great success. By the end of the following March most of the launching vehicles had been destroyed and there were no replacements. Hitler's forces had many more warheads available but no more vehicles to launch them.
FLYBOYJ said:I also see you're skirting the issue, you once again CANNOT prove that anyone wasn't satisfied with the A-20 or that it was "underperforming."