Bomb sights for light bombers.

[tomo pauk]

According to the 'Vee's for victory', it was able to fly 360+ mph, from sea level to 14000 ft ( >576 km/h up until 4340m) - the engine was tuned for low level work. So from deck to 3500m it was faster than a contemporary Fw-190.

[Vincenzo]

According to the 'Vee's for victory', it was able to fly 360+ mph, from sea level to 14000 ft ( >576 km/h up until 4340m) - the engine was tuned for low level work. So from deck to 3500m it was faster than a contemporary Fw-190.

were estimed 345 mph at S.L. and 366 at F.T.H., http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...36-na-5338.pdf

[barney]

A-36 gunsight - anybody know what this is?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...India_1945.JPG

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for the table, Vicenzo.
The 345 mph at sea level is with MIL rating (1325 HP), 1500 HP was available there with WER (up to 5400 ft), hence the 366 mph at S.L. as stated in the book.

[Vincenzo]

Thanks for the table, Vicenzo.
The 345 mph at sea level is with MIL rating (1325 HP), 1500 HP was available there with WER (up to 5400 ft), hence the 366 mph at S.L. as stated in the book.

after years on forums and see many primary sources (digital version off course) i've ever doubt on books
21 mph to up i think i bit too many

[parsifal]

An A-36 fully bombed up, is not going to be able to reach 360 mph or 345 mph for that matter. I would expect those figures to be as a "clean" configuration.

However, any bomber or fighter bomber able to travel raster than about 310 mph is going to be a very hard target for an FW 190 to catch. Mosquito B IVs fully loaded and armed had a top speed of around 340 mph. They were basically uninterceptable at that speed. An Fw 190 at that speed I expect is going have the throttles wide open, fuel consumption right up, and far less endurance as a result. In most cases they will lack the legs to keep up or catch up.

If the raid is first detected at a range of say 50 miles, the FW 190 and the target for the bombers is say 150 miles from take off. The A-36 travelling at 340mph will reach target in less than half an hour. If the range to intercept is 50 miles, and the FW 190 wants to intercept before the attack gets under way, he has to do that in less than half an hour. He will need to be travelling at least 390 mph in order tyo intercept by my calculations, which he cannot do. He might catch the A-36 on the return leg, but by then the A-36 has the throttles wide open too and the speed difference might be 20mph or less. Lets assume the A-36 is 20 miles from the Fw190 by the time he starts to head for home, and the rate of closure is now 20mph. It will take the A-36 less than half an hour to get home, but it would take the FW 190 an hour to catch him....in other words he cannot do it.

Of course there are endless variations to this, but the basic maths makes it a difficult prospect to intercept, whern there is only a 40 or 50 mph in speed difference.

[parsifal]

We've been told of P-47s having undertaken bombing raids with les than 2% accuracy for an attack on a bridge, which I now believe is the attack undertaken by a P-47 unit in connection to the Monte Cassino Battle in March 1944. What about the other end of th4e scale??? We have looked at the P-47s at their worst, what about at their best?

Looking at the performace of the XiX tactical Command, I came acoss this report in relation to the falaise battle

That morning 37 P-47 pilots of the 36th Group found 800 to 1,000 enemy vehicles of all types milling about in the pocket west of Argentan. They could see American and British forces racing to choke off the gap. They went to work. Within an hour the Thunderbolts had blown up or burned out between 400 and 500 enemy vehicles. The fighter-bombers kept at it until they ran out of bombs and ammunition. One pilot, with empty gun chambers and bomb shackles, dropped his belly tank on 12 trucks and left them all in flames.


Obviously a proportion of these kills were done with guns, but the bombs must also have had an effect

[parsifal]

This is an excerpt from the following:

http://www.aero-web.org/history/wwii/d-day/17.htm


I make no claims as to the accuracy of these figures but it at least appears that the p-47s undertook some very critical work and were extremely good at what they did

Even allowing for some exaggeration and duplicate claims, the sortie claims of the Ninth AF and 2 TAF during the Normandy fighting is most impressive. Fighter-bomber sortie claims in Normandy
. 2 TAF/ 9 AF/Total
Sorties flown 9,896/2,891/12,787
Claims for motor transport destroyed 3,340/2,520/ 5,860
Claims for armor destroyed 257/ 134/ 391
Total claims 3,597/2,654/ 6,251
Claims per sortie 0.36/ 0.92/ 0.49
No stronger endorsement of the air support in Normandy canbe found than Omar N. Bradley's letter to AAF Commanding General "Hap" Arnold at the end of September 1944. "I cannot say too much for the very close cooperation we have had between Air and Ground," Bradley wrote. "In my opinion, our close cooperation is better than the Germans ever had in their best days."

[riacrato]

According to the 'Vee's for victory', it was able to fly 360+ mph, from sea level to 14000 ft ( >576 km/h up until 4340m) - the engine was tuned for low level work. So from deck to 3500m it was faster than a contemporary Fw-190.

When used as dive bombers they approached at 4300m though.

[tomo pauk]

My point was that A-36 was way faster than any dive bomber fielded; it was faster than many fighters in 1942/43. While it's true that in bombed-up state the speed was down, it rook the interceptors being at just the right spot, if they were to score kills. If not, A-36s will bomb the targets and retreat.
With USAAC employing A-24s ( variant of the Douglas SBD Dauntless), for example, in such tasks, the defending fighters would've had far easier time to catch them.

Hi, Vicenzo

after years on forums and see many primary sources (digital version off course) i've ever doubt on books
21 mph to up i think i bit too many

The table from Mike's site declares the figures as 'guaranteed/estimated' - the serial produced planes will achieve at least as good performance as stated there (we could expect better, then). In other words, the table is not a result of USAAC tests.

[Vincenzo]

My point was that A-36 was way faster than any dive bomber fielded; it was faster than many fighters in 1942/43. While it's true that in bombed-up state the speed was down, it rook the interceptors being at just the right spot, if they were to score kills. If not, A-36s will bomb the targets and retreat.
With USAAC employing A-24s ( variant of the Douglas SBD Dauntless), for example, in such tasks, the defending fighters would've had far easier time to catch them.

Hi, Vicenzo



The table from Mike's site declares the figures as 'guaranteed/estimated' - the serial produced planes will achieve at least as good performance as stated there (we could expect better, then). In other words, the table is not a result of USAAC tests.

wait, the first collumn are estiamted the 2nd guaranteed, and it's possible that stime are optimistic (it's not so uncommon), the guarantees speed are 328 and 350 mph and this are for clean plane, estimated with bomb racks (w/o bombs) are 337 and 356 mph, with 500 lbs bombs are 305 and 332 mph. sure it's fast at low, like the P-51 with Allison.

[davebender]

A 1945 photograph of an A-36. Apparently it has been field modified since it rolled out of the factory during 1942.

[tyrodtom]

Are you still going by the three picture you posted of A-36 cockpit ?

The 3 pictures were of the same aircraft, and with so many switches, instruments, levers, control collumn grip, and other things was missing from that cockpit, as well as a gunsight, how could you base you knowledge of what any operational A-36 had from those pictures ?

[gorizont]

This is an excerpt from the following:

D Day: The Legacy of Air Power at Normandy


I make no claims as to the accuracy of these figures but it at least appears that the p-47s undertook some very critical work and were extremely good at what they did

Even allowing for some exaggeration and duplicate claims, the sortie claims of the Ninth AF and 2 TAF during the Normandy fighting is most impressive. Fighter-bomber sortie claims in Normandy
. 2 TAF/ 9 AF/Total
Sorties flown 9,896/2,891/12,787
Claims for motor transport destroyed 3,340/2,520/ 5,860
Claims for armor destroyed 257/ 134/ 391
Total claims 3,597/2,654/ 6,251
Claims per sortie 0.36/ 0.92/ 0.49
No stronger endorsement of the air support in Normandy canbe found than Omar N. Bradley's letter to AAF Commanding General "Hap" Arnold at the end of September 1944. "I cannot say too much for the very close cooperation we have had between Air and Ground," Bradley wrote. "In my opinion, our close cooperation is better than the Germans ever had in their best days."

There is a more informative link about it - HyperWar: The US Army Air Forces in WWII: D-Day 1944
But I suspect here an example of an ordinary overclaiming.
All the mentioned air forces had about 2400 fighters and fighter-bombers plus 700 medium and heavy bombers in support.
So every aircraft according to the claims destroyed about 2 mororboats and one out of ten destroyed an armor (what armor? a tank or?).
Please look at your own post in the topic there you shows how not effective were Luftwaffe against armor of Soviet Union. And now do you belive that in the case of US and Britain pilots the matter is so different?
Hm...
Germans at D-Day had at Normandy the only 21st Panzer division. It had about 140 tanks and self-propelled guns. I wonder how Allies managed to find out about 400 "armors" from less than 200 (I don't see claims for german armors from other US and British forces - I guess if count them Germans had got not less than 1000 tanks in Normandy )

And it's not easy to coprehend what "a motor boat" means.
R-boat? or something about a two-meters long pleasure boat?

Anyway should we believe that no less every one pilot of Allies airforce destroyed about two boats in the campaign?

Second - I suppose that claims have a little concern in any aspect with bombing accuracy.
We have no statistic even with claims - what percentage of claims put down to dropped bombs.

[tyrodtom]

I think when they say motor transport they mean vehicles, trucks, cars, not water transportation. Armor would be tanks of all sizes, assualt guns, probably half tracks too. If a pilot sees a turret, a big gun, or tracks, to him it's a tank.