davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
The A/B-26 Invader
The best low-flying attack aircraft of WW2. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter I-16_SpB
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Glider
Major
Correct but not normally in the low level attack role in the ETO and MTO. There were of course exceptions but they normally operated as a traditional medium bomber and the A26 which had the best performance of them all generally operated at medium altitude. This was despite the crews being originally trained in low level work.
Kevin J
Banned
O
On the Eastern Front, the A-20 was their favourite torpedo bomber, and the B-25, their favourite long range bomber.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
P-39. 37mm cannon and good low altitude performance in all versions.
fubar57
General
LMAO
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
And why is that so funny? Most information (except recent) says that ground attack was all it was good for.
Kevin J
Banned
It's most successful use was as a battlefield air superiority fighter by the Soviets.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
I guess my humor was lost on you.
fubar57
General
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Sorry to disappoint you.
Pe-2 with M-105F engine was probably the best among mass-produced series. So, 500 km/h can be assumed as a real limit for this aircraft.
Pe-2 with M-82 was faster but built in the numbers too small to have an impact.
As for survivability... It was agile (for a bomber) and dived fast but could hardly fly on one engine and was difficult in landing even undamaged. The pilot's skill was probably the main factor of the survivability.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Not many twin engine aircraft could survive losing an engine if it happened at low level. The torque reaction from the still running engine and the drag from the stopped propeller until the pilot or engineer could feather it would make the plane spin. I believe losing an engine on a Mosquito below about 4,000 feet was a real nasty thing partly because of the power of the engines I wouldnt be surprised if it was the same for any powerful twin.
Hm, that's interesting. I guess that is what the 'Field Force' possibly means, although I'm inclined to agree with your definition, SR. As mentioned, there is nothing else within the specification that states its role as a ground support aircraft. Here's the title and first paragraph:
"F.11/37 Twin-Engined Two-Seater Fighter (Replaces F.18/36) [a predecessor spec for a two-seat fighter, not proceeded with] Dated 26/5/37 File No.630893/RDA3 Issued to Boulton Paul
Requirements: Air Staff Operational requirement OR.50 requires a fighter capable of operating by day and night for home defence or with the Field Force. In order to obtain a striking power superior to the eight-gun machine-gun fighter, it will be necessary to provide four 20mm automatic guns. These guns are to be mounted in a power-operated turret."
Interestingly it was the Beaufighter (built to F.17/39) that eventually came out of Bristol researching F.11/37, which, as we know was a formidable ground attack aircraft, and not a terrible night fighter either, although the Beaufighter V turret fighter was a bit of a dead loss as it was slower than the Defiant it was intended on replacing as part of F.18/40.
Last edited:
The A20, A26 and B25 operated very successfully in the low-level attack role in the PTO. This seems to have fooled the USAAF into thinking the A26 with its high performance could be operated in the same way over Europe. As far as I know, the first combat sorties of the A26 in Europe ended with the loss of 12 of 12 aircraft sortied. Whatever its speed, an A26 at low level would have made a nicely big and comparatively un-agile target for those 20mm quads. The B25 and B26 operated in Europe at medium altitudes; most B25 in Europe had glass noses and anyway they were outnumbered by the B26, which wasn't really seen much in the PTO after 1942, but had a fairly low loss rate in the ETO.
