Dec 1941 RLM decision. Produce BMW 801. Cancel Jumo 222.

[Siegfried]

Now as I wrote this is ot but have you really not heard the resetlement of Baltic Germans in late 39-early 40? Germany sent ships to Baltic States to evacuate Baltic Germans, a significant minority there, and to resettle them into annexed areas of Poland. IIRC this evacuation/resettlement began already in Oct 39 . One wonder why???? Why agree this with SU if eHitler and co didn't know what would be the destiny of Baltic States. Maybe Hitler and co were less sentimental and much more cynical than you think and gave a damm to those "ancient and affectionate links with all the Baltic states through the Hanseatic league".

Juha

This is a case of wearing filtered googles. Berlin was developing as much of an intelligence network into the Soviet Government as it could, it knew what was comming and acted to protect its folk, the Nazis took a profound interest in the wellbeing of Germans, that was what the ideology was about afterall. Secondly there is the often neglected evolving tendancy of persecution of ethnic Germans by a surging Baltic nationalism. The ethnic Germans in these countries, whicle few, tended to dervive from the classic german city state: ie a town with an elected burgermeister (due to their orgin as tradesman and traders) and were in that respect 'priveledged' in that they did not have a history of sefdom typical of the Russian empire. The supposed 'priveledged status' caused some resentment. The threat against ethnic germans was not just from the Soviets.

[tyrodtom]

And I thought the reichs ministry of propaganda died with Goebbels ,LOL.

[davebender]

That's true to a point. The B-17 would have been effective against maritime targets if pilots had been taught to use the Swedish Turnip Method (i.e. German skip bombing technique). However it's also a large, slow target for enemy light flak.

IMO the fast and inexpensive A-20 would have been ideal for short range maritime attack. Use the B-25 for longer range missions. Acquisition of British made Mk XII aerial torpedoes would have made them even more effective.

The B-26 might work but it had a bad reputation early on. Work the bugs out over land before performing combat missions over the Pacific.

[Shortround6]

Very short ranged maritime attack.

B-17C could carry 4000lbs 2400 miles, that is going to be a bit shorter with combat allowances, forming up and formation flying. An A20-A was good for 1200lb bomb load over 675 miles. now apply combat allowances, forming up and formation flying and see how far you go. Needing 3 times the number of A-20s to carry the same bomb load kind of takes them out of the "inexpensive" category.

[Juha]

Hello Siegfried
Partly the Baltic Germans were descents of urban traders but partly descents of knights and soldiers of the Brothers of the Sword/the Teutonic Order which had conquered the area of present-day Baltic States in 13rd century and subdued the natives to serfdom and the resentment towards Baltic Germans was mostly consequence of that, Germans remained privileged and lords of the manors straight up to the independence of Baltic States in 1918-19. But that resentment settled down, at least amongst the Baltic people, when after independence most of the lands of manors were confiscated and distributed to the farmers. After that IIRC there were not much problems between Baltic Germans and Balts/Estonians, It might be better that we concentrate to planes and aero-engines.

Juha

[davparlr]

That's true to a point. The B-17 would have been effective against maritime targets if pilots had been taught to use the Swedish Turnip Method (i.e. German skip bombing technique). However it's also a large, slow target for enemy light flak.

A descending approach could be used to keep the speed up but it would still be a large and slow target, but not as bad as the Devastator, who flew at around 100 kts. I believe the B-25 used skip bombing to great effect in the Pacific.

The B-26 might work but it had a bad reputation early on. Work the bugs out over land before performing combat missions over the Pacific.

The only real bug the B-26 had was that it was slightly ahead of its time and had a feature that all military pilots soon had to learn to cope with successfully, high wing loading. This should have been solved by training and not by rebuilding the wing.

B-17C could carry 4000lbs 2400 miles, that is going to be a bit shorter with combat allowances, forming up and formation flying. An A20-A was good for 1200lb bomb load over 675 miles. now apply combat allowances, forming up and formation flying and see how far you go. Needing 3 times the number of A-20s to carry the same bomb load kind of takes them out of the "inexpensive" category.

No less capable than the TBF and a whole lot faster. Does any one know if the Navy ever showed any interest in navalizing the A-20? It was heavier than the TBF by about 5000 lbs., but certainly would have added punch to the carrier. At 347 mph, it was faster than the Zero and cruised at a speed, 295 mph, much faster than where the zero began to be difficult to maneuver.

[Shortround6]

No less capable than the TBF and a whole lot faster. Does any one know if the Navy ever showed any interest in navalizing the A-20? It was heavier than the TBF by about 5000 lbs., but certainly would have added punch to the carrier. At 347 mph, it was faster than the Zero and cruised at a speed, 295 mph, much faster than where the zero began to be difficult to maneuver.

A carrier plane has to take off from and land on the carrier. The A-20 actually had less sq footage of wing area than a TBF, meaning stall speeds are going to be higher. Higher take-off speed and higher landing speed. landing speed is important not only for the safty of the crew and aircraft but affects impact loads on the deck and affects the ability of the arresting system to stop the aircraft. With the non folding wing and 17ft 7in high tail the A-20 had a couple of strikes against it just fitting on a carrier. While you could speed time and effort designing folding wings, a folding tail, special flaps and other items needed to "navalize" it ( or build bigger carriers) you might as well design new aircraft.

[davebender]

Exactly what the U.S. needed for sinking IJA troop transports when they entered Philippine coastal waters. The A-20 would have worked equally well on Guadalcanal ILO short range SBDs and TBFs.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just a reminder everyone, play nice. This thread has the typical makings of a playground fight.

[tomo pauk]

Good call about A-20s (or, even better, the B-25s) in the Philippines & Guadacanal. Or Beaufighters in Malaya? Unless they got caught on the ground, but even the Me-262 was not immune at that.

[davparlr]

A carrier plane has to take off from and land on the carrier. The A-20 actually had less sq footage of wing area than a TBF, meaning stall speeds are going to be higher. Higher take-off speed

I don't see this as a particular problem. The A-20A has about 30% better power to loaded weight ratio over the TBF. If the TBF could operate off a light carrier, the A-20 should be able to operate off a fleet carrier.

and higher landing speed. landing speed is important not only for the safty of the crew and aircraft but affects impact loads on the deck and affects the ability of the arresting system to stop the aircraft.

I do see this as a problem that would have to be addressed.

With the non folding wing and 17ft 7in high tail the A-20 had a couple of strikes against it just fitting on a carrier. While you could speed time and effort designing folding wings, a folding tail, special flaps and other items needed to "navalize" it ( or build bigger carriers) you might as well design new aircraft.

In 1939, I don't think a whole new plane would provide any improved performance over the A-20 and navalizing, as you well defined it, may have been quicker and cheaper. A trade-off would have to be made. The performance capability of the A-20 over contemporary Navy planes was significant. If you look at it, the A-20 was almost a 1939 version of the F7F. In fact, it was faster than the F4F-3/4, and had about the same power to loaded weight ratio and probably would have out-climbed it if configured as a fighter. Speaking of a new aircraft, if we took the A-20 and slimmed down the fuselage, made it a single seater thus lightening it up, installed six 50s in the nose with plenty of ammo, boost the engines to raise critical altitude and you get a heavy fighter with 350 mph +, which walk away from and out climb the front line Navy fighter and have good range, all being delivered in 1941! Interesting thought.

[davebender]

Consider availability.

The U.S. was awash in A-20s by 1941. That's why hundreds were being exported to nations such as France and the Netherlands. I assume the USAAF had priority so acquiring 100 or more A-20 maritime attack aircraft for USAFFE (U.S. Armed Forces Far East) shouldn't have been difficult.

The B-25 didn't enter large scale production until January 1942. Too late for the Philippine military build up during the fall of 1941.

[davparlr]

A little aside from this thread but this is an interesting interview with some B-26 crew members that were involved in the Battle of Midway.

martin b-26 marauders battle of midway - YouTube

[davebender]

Could the B-26 operate from forward area airfields with grass or dirt runways? In the Philippines that would have been a normal runway.

[davparlr]

Could the B-26 operate from forward area airfields with grass or dirt runways? In the Philippines that would have been a normal runway.

I think the B-25 was better suited for this environment. I think the interview does support the fact that the B-26 was a tough old bird. What did the guy say, every prop blade had bullet holes in them.