AHC/WI: the US 9th Air Force converts more twin engine bombers into gunships

What if the 9th Air Force in England adopted the use of twin engine gunships being used in Pacific on larger scale starting with the air offensive in the spring of 1944.

Some PODs would be:

- More B-26 and A-20 Marauders already in England are converted into solid nose gunships. There are experiments with stripping the bombers of their waist/tail guns to make them faster and lighter.

-Deployment of the A-26 is pushed up to early 1944 rather than September as in the OTL. Perhaps the A-26 becomes a twin seat bomber as in the Korean War era earlier

-according to Wikipedia when the P-61 Black widow arrived in England some USAAF generals thought it was too slow. What if the Black Widow makes a name for itself on night time attack missions first before impressing the brass as a night fighter.

-And of course some B25G/H added to the mix.

What I envision is the up-gunned twin engine bombers shooting up German airfields/trucks/trains prior to D-day in France/Belgium/Holland with the P-47s while the Mustangs concentrate on deep penetration missions over Germany.

Now the challenge is get Air Force brass in England to use tactics from the Pacific.
 
German FLAK was a lot more effective than Japanese. Low level tactics that worked elsewhere generally went badly vs the Germans. The Ijmuden raid of 1943 is one glaring example. The single engine fighters that attacked at extreme low levels, strafing that is, depended on steep dives and high speed to get away with it. The twin mediums simply could not reach the necessary speeds, nor could they dive or manuver as the singles could.

The 9th AF wanted to attack at low altitudes, but found 10,000 to 15,000 feet altitude was the optimal compromise. Experienced crews would take attacks lower, someimes as low as 1,500 feet, but those were exceptional and risked higher losses.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Much higher losses would be the result.

The Heer actually had some very good AAA, unlike the IJA, including a large number of tracked carriers with dual/quad turreted guns. This doesn't even begin to consider the 88mm DP that the Heer used for everything from aircraft to shelling troop positions.

Strafing is terrific, as long as the other guy can't blow you out of the sky. If he can, it is always important to be the lead ship and maintain surprise.
 
Much higher losses would be the result.

The Heer actually had some very good AAA, unlike the IJA, including a large number of tracked carriers with dual/quad turreted guns. This doesn't even begin to consider the 88mm DP that the Heer used for everything from aircraft to shelling troop positions.

Strafing is terrific, as long as the other guy can't blow you out of the sky. If he can, it is always important to be the lead ship and maintain surprise.

Yet all those Jabos did their thing in P-47,Typhoon and P-51 sweeps, with all that AAA on the ground.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Yet all those Jabos did their thing in P-47,Typhoon and P-51 sweeps, with all that AAA on the ground.

BIG difference between a 400 MPH single engine fighter with a 37-40 foot wingspan and a 240 mph (maybe) twin engine bomber with a 68 foot wingspan, starting with the fact that it can defend itself from other single engine fighters. B-25H is sort of weak in the whole dogfight arena.

The three fighters you mention were also all able to make steep dives and zoom climb out of them, something that would literally tear the wings off a bomber. Fighters also have a one man crew while the bomber has at least four, usually five, and cost around 40-50% of the bomber. Fighters also handle like, well, fighters, something that bombers, even the best of them, can't do at low altitude.

From a military standpoint is it better to risk one man, flying an aircraft that costs 50-60% less, has a markedly better chance of survival, and can conduct missions without additional escort or risk five flying a much slower, larger aircraft over a defended target when the volume of fire and amount of munitions delivered against the target is virtually identical?

Seems rather cut & dried.
 
Top