The real combat history of the P-39 Airacobra in the Pacific (4 Viewers)

[Steamed_Banana]

The B-26s of 22nd BG were stood down in January '43. Most of the group converted to B-25s later in the year, but one squadron, the 19th BS, would resume combat operations flying refurbished B-26s in July until all B-26s in the Pacific were retired in Janaury '44.

That is something that baffled me a bit, because in the operational history the B-26s didn't seem to do so bad in combat, but I wonder if it came down to takeoff length and the size of the airfields, as SR6 is always on about. The B-26 needed about 1,000 feet more runway to take off than a B-25 and about 500 - 800 more than an A-20.

Or maybe they just wanted to simplify their logistics...?

 

[Greg Boeser]

Already in mid-1942 USAAF command had decided to simplify logistics in the Pacific. The early B-26 had been deemed unfit for combat in April, ironically on the very day the 22nd BG bombed Rabaul for the first time. Those units that had deployed at the outset of the war were to be re-equipped with B-25s as soon as they came available. All new B-26 groups, flying more powerful, more heavily armed models, were slated for Europe, the first arriving being diverted to North Africa.
But it was a slow process. 3rd BG had to repossess a bunch of B-25s originally destined for the NEI just to field enough aircraft for two squadrons. Then replacements barely kept up with losses.
They barely got enough A-20s to field a single squadron by August '42. One squadron flew A-24s but they were withdrawn after disastrous losses.
B-26 squadrons in Alaska began recieving B-25s in late 1942, with the first combat missions in December. The B-26s were flown back Stateside and assigned to training units. The two squadrons detached from the 38th BG and serving under 13th AF began recieving B-25s about the same time, but would not fly them in combat until mid '43. Two other squadrons of the 38th re-equipped with B-25s before leaving the States, arriving in Australia in August '42 with first combat mission in mid September.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Another factor is range. The early B-26 actually had better range than the early B-25C, but later blocks increased the internal fuel capacity.
The B-26 pilots prefered the Marauder over the Mitchell, which was a factor in the decision to refurbish the remaining 22nd BG Marauders to field a single squadron while the others waited for the replacement B-25s to arrive.

 

[Dimlee]

It's really hard to overstate the intense animosity between the Japanese Army and Navy. It was more comparable to strained relations between nations that expected they may have to one day fight one another, like say, England and the Soviet Union or Italy and Germany, than between agencies of the same government (at least theoretically!)

"England", not the UK, not Great Britain in this context...hmm...

Tedder and Dowding have something to say.
Hugh Pughe Lloyd scratches his head.
And Robert Blair "Paddy" Mayne is visibly annoyed. Don't mess with Paddy "...or the devil he may take ya"

Just kidding.

 

[Juha3]

This was one specific thing i was wondering about. I knew the P-400s on Guadalcanal were limited to a ceiling of about 10,000 ft due to a lack of O2 gear, so i was surprised in this volume on NG to see that they seem to have been operating in the teens etc. Do you happen to know if they had the British O2 equipment available or had managed to convert to US O2 gear? I could never understood why this wasn't resolved.



Shores also covers some of the fighting at Guadalcanal and in the Solomons in some of his other series, I was under the impression that the P-400s were in fact rather important in the CAS role. Conditions in both areas were really beyond brutal, but you may be right that Guadalcanal was worse, especially in the first few months.

IMO, across all the 'secondary' Theaters of the war - Pacific, Med, Burma, the first six months of 1942 were an utter nightmare for the Allies, with a few rare exceptions.

A late reply, but on NG there were also the RAAF which surely had British O2 equipment at least some of their plane, so they must have also British air bottles and equipment to fill them.

 

[GrauGeist]

The RNZAF was at Henderson Field (Guadalcanal) in '42 with their Hudsons...there is a chance they may have provided some Commonwealth O2 systems to the P-400 pilots stationed there.

 

[muskeg13]

That is something that baffled me a bit, because in the operational history the B-26s didn't seem to do so bad in combat, but I wonder if it came down to takeoff length and the size of the airfields, as SR6 is always on about. The B-26 needed about 1,000 feet more runway to take off than a B-25 and about 500 - 800 more than an A-20.

Or maybe they just wanted to simplify their logistics...?

We've all heard stories about the B-25 being easier to fly than the B-26, so I'm guessing the accident loss rate was higher for the B-26. Does anyone know how the maintenance records compare? Was the B-25 easier/cheaper to operate and maintain? How did the Pacific battle loss rates compare before the B-26s were withdrawn?

 

[Steamed_Banana]

You can look at this period in this book as it does include accidents, I haven't counted up all of them but most are already listed in this thread. Total losses in New Guinea in 1942 were 39 B-26s and 50 B-25s. I think the numbers of both were about equal until the fall of 1942 by which time more B-25s arrived. Most of the losses were to takeoff or landing accidents and navigation errors / getting lost etc., though both B-26 and B-25 units had a couple of bad days where they took heavy losses to Zeros.

I didn't get the impression that the B-26s were having accidents more often. I have come to the conclusion that the main issue against the B-26 was the requirement for a significantly longer takeoff run, which limited the fields they could be used on.

 

[Greg Boeser]

You can look at this period in this book as it does include accidents, I haven't counted up all of them but most are already listed in this thread. Total losses in New Guinea in 1942 were 39 B-26s and 50 B-25s. I think the numbers of both were about equal until the fall of 1942 by which time more B-25s arrived. Most of the losses were to takeoff or landing accidents and navigation errors / getting lost etc., though both B-26 and B-25 units had a couple of bad days where th
I didn't get the impression that the B-26s were having accidents more often. I have come to the conclusion that the main issue against the B-26 was the requirement for a significantly longer takeoff run, which limited the fields they could be used on.

22nd BG had four squadrons of B-26, though it took a while for all to be operational. First elements arrived in March. 3rd BG commandeered the Dutch B-25s about that time for two squadrons of B-25. Both went into action 6 April when B-26s hit Rabaul, B-25s hit Gasmata. 38th BG arrives August with two squadrons of B-25. First offensive missions in September. 22nd recieved roughly a dozen replacement aircraft in '42 but attrition wore them down. When stood down Jan '43 they had less than two dozen serviceable aircraft. I haven't given the 3rd as much attention, and have almost no info on the 38th, but I know that replacement B-25s were trickling in.

 

[EwenS]

The story about the "requisitioning" of the Dutch aircraft in Australia is to say the least a bit confusing in terms of the various serial numbers involved. The plan was for the Dutch to receive 60 B-25C in Australia from March 1942 via an accelerated delivery plan. Then it was agreed 42 of those would go to the USAAF.

I'm confused about the accounts as to who got what at the end of the day, but the USAAF got somewhere between 42 & 60 between March & June 1942.

Dutch B-25s / Misc Library / Forums - Axis and Allies Paintworks

During the Second World War, the Mitchell served in fairly large numbers with the air force of the Dutch government in exile. They participated in combat both in the East Indies as well as on the European front. Following the war, they were used i...

www.axis-and-allies-paintworks.com

You need to scroll down the page a bit to get to the NEIAF bit.
And from a Dutch site

Dutch North American B-25 Mitchells - Page 2

Article about North American B-25C/D en B-25j Mithcell of NEIAF

kw.jonkerweb.net

 

[drgondog]

That is something that baffled me a bit, because in the operational history the B-26s didn't seem to do so bad in combat, but I wonder if it came down to takeoff length and the size of the airfields, as SR6 is always on about. The B-26 needed about 1,000 feet more runway to take off than a B-25 and about 500 - 800 more than an A-20.

Or maybe they just wanted to simplify their logistics...?

The B-26 was a fine airplane but it had several characteristics that made it a more demanding aircraft to fly than a B-25 (or A-26 or A-20).

Simply stated, the B-26 had significantly higher wing loading which translated to a.) higher stall speed requiring higher approach and landing speed, b.) greater speed and longer runways to take off and land.

New pilots coming from Advanced training might have received time in a B-25, but more likely in a C-45 which is a far more docile and forgiving twin engine aircraft than a B-26. Experienced pilots in a B-25 would have no trouble if they listened to instructions and understood the differences in approach speed and landing differences. The higher stall speed was a killer and almost forced cancellation circa B-26C. Doolittle saved the program for Martin.

My father loved it, almost went to war with it before sneaking out for Fighters based on his legs being too short for rudder pedals. That said he performed as B-26 IP for 355th FG fighter pilots at Steeple Morden who were interested in learning to fly it.

FWIIW, the B-25s that Pappy Gunn modified universally had a forward CG issue after he stuffed everything up front so, allegedly the SWPA B-25s were no safer than a B-26 relative to airfield management.

 

[Greg Boeser]

The first groups to get the B-26 were trading in their B-18s.

 

[Shortround6]

There were also 3 different B-26 bombers.
The B-26 (no letter) 201 (?) built
The B-26A with 139 (?) built
The B-26B below the -10 version with about 641 built.
These had the 65ft wing.
The later B-26Bs (-10s and above) and the B-26Cs got the longer 71ft wing, more flap area outboard of the engines and a taller vertical stabilizer. All to help with take-off, landing and engine out situations. Often negated when they increased the gross weight/s.
The B-26Fs in early 1944 got the tilted wing...........and higher gross weights?
B-26s used in the 1942/early 43 Pacific theater/s were which version/s?

Operational history with the early short wing airplanes may not have been good from the accident point of view.
It wasn't good in early US training bases in the southern United States and that was not at max gross weights.
These early planes could be 15-20mph faster than the later ones.
The early planes had a gross weight of around 31,000lbs instead of the 37,000lbs of the later aircraft and that may have seriously impacted operational limits.
Available fuel (range) vs bomb load, even without the external strafing guns.

 

[Greg Boeser]

The Marauders sent to the Pacific were mostly B-26 MA. 22nd BG (to Australia) - four squadrons. 28th Composite (Alaska) two squadrons. Two squadrons of the 38th BG deployed with the earliest B-26B models. These still had the R-2800-5 engines. The 22nd got a handful of B-26B late in '42, but these were not very effective. In '43 the 19th BS took over the remaining refurbished B-26 MA.

 

[special ed]

One of my books (have no idea which) tells of evacuating an airfield because of Japanese approach, where a B-26 with dead engine was saved by stripping weight and single engine takeoff.

 

[SaparotRob]

The first groups to get the B-26 were trading in their B-18s.

That must've been an eye-opening experience.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

There were also 3 different B-26 bombers.
The B-26 (no letter) 201 (?) built
The B-26A with 139 (?) built
The B-26B below the -10 version with about 641 built.
These had the 65ft wing.
The later B-26Bs (-10s and above) and the B-26Cs got the longer 71ft wing, more flap area outboard of the engines and a taller vertical stabilizer. All to help with take-off, landing and engine out situations. Often negated when they increased the gross weight/s.
The B-26Fs in early 1944 got the tilted wing...........and higher gross weights?
B-26s used in the 1942/early 43 Pacific theater/s were which version/s?

Operational history with the early short wing airplanes may not have been good from the accident point of view.
It wasn't good in early US training bases in the southern United States and that was not at max gross weights.
These early planes could be 15-20mph faster than the later ones.
The early planes had a gross weight of around 31,000lbs instead of the 37,000lbs of the later aircraft and that may have seriously impacted operational limits.
Available fuel (range) vs bomb load, even without the external strafing guns.

I believe the ones operating in 1942 were all the early types, maybe some B-26Bs as replacements, and I don't think they crashed in accidents etc. more often than any of the other bomber types (let alone the P-39s). Their speed was appreciated as it helped on a couple of occasions, though there were also some incidents including one I described upthread where they got pounced on during unescorted flights and several were shot down.

I really think the takeoff run was the issue, because they were rapidly building new airfields in New Guinea to accommodate all of the new aircraft coming in, and not all of the fields could be lengthened to the size needed for a B-26, and those that could were being used for B-17s and B-24s which were (arguably) more useful due to their extended range and (especially for the B-17s) capability of flying on unescorted missions.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The B-26 was a fine airplane but it had several characteristics that made it a more demanding aircraft to fly than a B-25 (or A-26 or A-20).

Simply stated, the B-26 had significantly higher wing loading which translated to a.) higher stall speed requiring higher approach and landing speed, b.) greater speed and longer runways to take off and land.

New pilots coming from Advanced training might have received time in a B-25, but more likely in a C-45 which is a far more docile and forgiving twin engine aircraft than a B-26. Experienced pilots in a B-25 would have no trouble if they listened to instructions and understood the differences in approach speed and landing differences. The higher stall speed was a killer and almost forced cancellation circa B-26C. Doolittle saved the program for Martin.

My father loved it, almost went to war with it before sneaking out for Fighters based on his legs being too short for rudder pedals. That said he performed as B-26 IP for 355th FG fighter pilots at Steeple Morden who were interested in learning to fly it.

FWIIW, the B-25s that Pappy Gunn modified universally had a forward CG issue after he stuffed everything up front so, allegedly the SWPA B-25s were no safer than a B-26 relative to airfield management.

I am aware of the traits ala wing-loading and stall speed of the early B-26, but I'm just noting it doesn't seem to be reflected in the operational history (at least in New Guinea, I believe some were also being used in Alaska...?) as far as the number of accidents in Claringbould's books, which cover the entire year of 1942. The B-26 units had a lot of accidents but so did the P-39s, P-40s, P-38s, B-25s, A-20s, B-17s, B-24s, Beauforts, Beaufighters etc. etc.

I wonder if part of the issue was that traits of the B-26 were being blamed for what seem like universal problems. The Allies (Americans and Australians both) had many more accidents and mishaps operating in New Guinea than the Japanese did, at least twice as many maybe three times. The conditions were horrible, and may have been a little worse for the Allies due to a larger number of aircraft and quickly built airfields and hastily prepared bases etc., but some of it must come down to training and maintenance.

All of the Allied aircraft operating in New Guinea seemed to have a high accident and mishap rate, and the Allies were also prone to navigation problems resulting in flying into mountains or out to sea never to be heard from again. The truth is a lot of the Allied units were rushed into the breach so fast that they did not have sufficient training especially (though to varying degrees) on the specific types of aircraft they were using. They also lacked for things like charts, local knowledge of the topography and many lethal quirks of the local environment etc. Early on they had extremely primitive maintenance facilities and were open repairing aircraft in the open air amid swarms of mosquitoes, daily thunderstorms etc., and while ill with malaria and a slew of other tropical diseases, sleeping in muddy tents without mosquito nets and so on. I think this contributed to the high rate of engines seizing, landing gear failing to deploy and the many other mechanical problems, which in turn often contributed to wrecks.

One of the reasons, IMO, to carefully read through these sometimes rather tedious detailed operational histories is to learn where the many tropes and propaganda slogans we all read about for decades and the true reality separate somewhat. I'm seeing a lot of that in this series but I'll address some of my observations (for what little that is worth) at the end after I finish going through Vol 6.

 

[skyking1]

thanks for tolerating the interesting B-26 thread derail. They deserve a separate thread.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

It's all part of it really, the P-39 is just an excuse to dive into the whole story