Best Allied Attack Bomber - North Africa 1941

[freebird]

I am curious to see what everyone thinks would be the best twin engine ground attack bombers that were used (or could be used) by the British in the Western Desert during 1941. The period would be from Africa Korps arrival in Feb/Mar 1941, and in the battles "Battleaxe" & "Crusader"

I am asking what you think about the abilities of the planes for close ground support, strafing, and low level attacks on transport & airfields. Flight characteristics, durability, desert suitability would all be factors. Also the ease of take off/landing etc, at short or primitive desert airfields. Assume that the planes could be re-configured with drop tanks or gun pods as needed.

I have included the NA-40B (prototype Mitchell) if it was ordered by the British/French instead of the A-20 Boston, not the later production model.

Please vote for only 1 "best bomber" and not more than two "runner up"s in the poll.

[Elvis]

Well, I picked the A-20, then the Bristol.

Why? Because I'm American, so we come first, then the blokes.

Anyway, at that time, I think our only other Attack Bomber was the army version of the Dauntless (A-24?) and the A-20 can hold a bigger bomb load and is roughly just as fast.


Elvis

[drgondog]

I picked the A-20, then torn between Beaufighter and NA40B for second place. The NA40B was not as good as B-25A abd B series and in my mind not as good as the A-20. I'm trying to remember if the NA40B had the gull wing Mod that was first incorporated in B-25A - but I believe 'no'. The NA 40B was really the same airframe and engine as the B-25A but only a middle top turret plus one nose mounted .30 cal and more of a true medium bomber than attack.

As to the A-20, my vote is the same if we are talking about Boston III which started deliveries in 1941 - and a definite yes when talking about A-20G's which mounted 8 x .50s in hard nose plus 2,000 pound bomb load (internal) plus 2,000 external

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Well, I picked the A-20, then the Bristol.



Why? Because I'm American, so we come first, then the blokes.

Anyway, at that time, I think our only other Attack Bomber was the army version of the Dauntless (A-24?) and the A-20 can hold a bigger bomb load and is roughly just as fast.


Elvis

Elvis - If you are comparing the A-20G to the SBD in either speed or range or flexibility, the A-20 could do everything better except dive bomb.. including being modified to carry torpedo's. It had 8 forward firing .50 cal in hard nose and could carry 2,000 internally plus two 1,000 bombs under each wing

The G and H topped out at 330-340mph about 80mph faster than SBD/A-24 and would even climb faster (empty).

[freebird]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I picked the A-20, then torn between Beaufighter and NA40B for second place. The NA40B was not as good as B-25A abd B series and in my mind not as good as the A-20. I'm trying to remember if the NA40B had the gull wing Mod that was first incorporated in B-25A - but I believe 'no'. The NA 40B was really the same airframe and engine as the B-25A but only a middle top turret plus one nose mounted .30 cal and more of a true medium bomber than attack.

As to the A-20, my vote is the same if we are talking about Boston III which started deliveries in 1941 - and a definite yes when talking about A-20G's which mounted 8 x .50s in hard nose plus 2,000 pound bomb load (internal) plus 2,000 external

I have read about the desert air force using Bostons, Blenhiems, Beaufighters and Baltimores/Marylands. Have you read any good books about the African air campaigns? I also could not find out if the Bostons used in N.A. by the British were Boston IIs or IIIs, do you know? Did the USAAF use Bostons in Africa?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by freebird

I have read about the desert air force using Bostons, Blenhiems, Beaufighters and Baltimores/Marylands. Have you read any good books about the African air campaigns? I also could not find out if the Bostons used in N.A. by the British were Boston IIs or IIIs, do you know? Did the USAAF use Bostons in Africa?

Freebird - the Boston III and IIIA (A-20C Ground attack version) were used as well as in 12th AF . The 12th AF 27th BG (light) went to NA in early 1943 in A-20C and soon became 27TH FG, replacing them w/A-36s. The Boston III was also used by Brits at Dieppe and chasing Scharnhorst in the run in the Channel

I'm trying to dig up some decent history of NA air campaign (Allied) but hard to come by.

[Wildcat]

For me its a toss up between the A-20 and the Baltimore. Both had similar performances and in the case of the Boston III versus the Baltimore III, very similar armament (The balt having more defensive firepower). Apart from its bombing role the Baltimore was also heavily used in the recce role which it performed well. The Mk V and IV could attain a max range of around 2800 miles when fitted with a 800 gallon fuel tank in the bomb bay.
However if we bring the A20G into the picture that is clearly the better of the two especially in the ground attack role (was it in service in '41?)
For those interested get hold a book called "Desert Scorpions" by Leon Kane-Maguire which is a history of 459 sqn RAAF and gives an excellent account of that squadrons activities with Hudsons, Venturas and Baltimores in the desert and over the Med. Their use of Hudsons on low level shipping strikes against German F Boats was particulary dangerous business!!
Also "Alamein to the Alps" by Mark Lax is a good account of 454 sqn RAAF's use of the Baltimore in the Med and Italy.
see 454 & 459 RAAF Squadrons for more info on these two units.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

For me its a toss up between the A-20 and the Baltimore. Both had similar performances and in the case of the Boston III versus the Baltimore III, very similar armament (The balt having more defensive firepower). Apart from its bombing role the Baltimore was also heavily used in the recce role which it performed well. The Mk V and IV could attain a max range of around 2800 miles when fitted with a 800 gallon fuel tank in the bomb bay.
However if we bring the A20G into the picture that is clearly the better of the two especially in the ground attack role (was it in service in '41?)
For those interested get hold a book called "Desert Scorpions" by Leon Kane-Maguire which is a history of 459 sqn RAAF and gives an excellent account of that squadrons activities with Hudsons, Venturas and Baltimores in the desert and over the Med. Their use of Hudsons on low level shipping strikes against German F Boats was particulary dangerous business!!
Also "Alamein to the Alps" by Mark Lax is a good account of 454 sqn RAAF's use of the Baltimore in the Med and Italy.
see 454 & 459 RAAF Squadrons for more info on these two units.

Wildcat - the answer to your question re 1941 for A-20G is no. They weren't operational in Africa until early 1943 and the BostonIII in early 1942.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I picked the A-20, then torn between Beaufighter and NA40B for second place. The NA40B was not as good as B-25A abd B series and in my mind not as good as the A-20. I'm trying to remember if the NA40B had the gull wing Mod that was first incorporated in B-25A - but I believe 'no'. The NA 40B was really the same airframe and engine as the B-25A but only a middle top turret plus one nose mounted .30 cal and more of a true medium bomber than attack.

As to the A-20, my vote is the same if we are talking about Boston III which started deliveries in 1941 - and a definite yes when talking about A-20G's which mounted 8 x .50s in hard nose plus 2,000 pound bomb load (internal) plus 2,000 external

Boston III in 1941 this would be the A-20c correct? How were the flight characteristics compared to the Baltimore?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Are we limiting this to just allied aircraft?

I am asking because I believe the Ju 88 was in service in 1941 though I am not sure if I would classify it is an attack bomber.

If this poll went into 1942 I would vote for the Hs 129B.

[Glider]

The best in 1941 would have to be the Beaufighter. The others tended to be the early versions and in most cases lacked forward firepower.
As a reserve I went for the Whirlwind. It never went to the desert but its performance, 4 x 20mm in the nose and ability to carry bombs would have made it a deadly strike aircraft

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by freebird

Boston III in 1941 this would be the A-20c correct? How were the flight characteristics compared to the Baltimore?

I'm not sure of the Baltimore version used in NA, but the very last production Baltimore V was better armed defensively per number of machine guns (2 to 4 x .303 in aft top turret , four wing mounted 303 and 2+ fixed firing rearward according to Wikipedia. It was the fastest of the Baltimores.

The A20C (Boston III) was about 30mph faster than the Baltimore V, had the same internal load of 2,000 pounds, (could carry a 2,000 pound torpedo) and was extremely manueverable and easy to handle. The III flown by Brits most often had glazed nose and four wing mounted .303 forward firing plus two in Dorsal turret plus one ventral .303.

The A-20C in the PTO was modified with hard nose and either 4x 20mm plus two .50s or six forward firing .50 cal plus twin .50's in Dorsal turret and one in ventral bay. This nose mod was incorporated in the production A20-G..

[Hakenkreuz]

The Ju 87 was the best attack bomber. The wirlwind was only a fighter until 1942 when it was equipped with bomb racks & became the Mk 1A

[Hakenkreuz]

Why? Because I'm American, so we come first, then the blokes.

Thats normal for a SEPTIC TANK

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You will not go around insulting members of this forum because they hold a different view than yours. That especially goes for someone with a controversial name and avatar like yours.

Do you understand?!