B26 Marauder Ops

…. and couldn’t just always go flat out.

Never underestimate the benefit of being able to run away quickly when the need arises.

It isn’t cowardice – it’s tactics. And one that I would have employed at the first sight of a balkenkreuz.

Moggy

As you say, this aircraft came through with a fine combat (as distinct from teething) record. I note it was shorter range than the heavies and wonder …
– did it operate with fighter cover more often than not?
– were shorter range (tactical) missions opposed less heavily by Luftwaffe fighter forces (when compared with “heavies” on longer range strategic sorties)
– did it enter combat in different theatres and/or later or in some other way different from its tactical contemporaries (especially B-25)

There’s a film (and maybe video) out there that perhaps sheds some light on this.
http://b-26mhs.org/b26/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=360&Itemid=116

Don

All of the above, I believe.

It was usually tasked to attack “soft” targets nearer the fronts, ones with lighter ground-based AA capacity.

Luftwaffe aircraft nearer the front were usually attacking Allied targets or getting into combat with Allied fighters… after all, the P-47s, Tornados, late-model Spits, P-38s, etc were usually prowling the same airspace as the B-26s used.

The B-26s were not (after the first few raids) used on heavily defended B-17/ B-24/ Lancaster type targets, but on less permanent targets… rail marshalling yards, fortified ground positions (a certain Italian monastery comes to mind), large vehicle-parks, supply dumps, etc.
From the air these look much like factories, etc… but they had fewer gun/aircraft defenses assigned.

The B-25 saw far more use in the Pacific than in Europe, the reverse was true for the B-26 (except for the North African campaign, where the B-25 was used more).

Reasons include (both models cited were produced early 1942-early 1944):

range (3,000 lb bomb load): B-25C 1,500 miles; B-26C* 1,150 miles.
Over the long stretches of water in the Pacific theatre, those 350 miles were very important.

speed (14,000 feet): B-25C max 284 mph, cruise 233 mph; B-26C max 282 mph, cruise 214 mph.
In those long-range flights, crew fatigue mounted, and faster cruise meant shorter flights. The small-wing B-26Bs reached 315 mph max, thus the Marauder’s rep as faster than the Mitchell, but all B-26s from Jan 1943 on had the larger wing.

ceiling: B-25C 24,000 feet; B-26C 21,700 feet.
In the Pacific, the air at high altitudes was usually warmer than in Europe, so crew comfort was similar (this usually did not impact missions), but the higher altitude did help cruise speed/range.

payload was the same for both: B-25C & B-26C 3,000 normal, 5,200 lb max.

* includes B-26Bs produced from Jan 1943-Jan 1944.

From Widow-Maker to Unsung Hero

Great question. Great aircraft. Pity about its ignoninious end with USAAF service – destroyed in droves and it’s ID taken over by the A-26.

As you say, this aircraft came through with a fine combat (as distinct from teething) record. I note it was shorter range than the heavies and wonder …
– did it operate with fighter cover more often than not?
– were shorter range (tactical) missions opposed less heavily by Luftwaffe fighter forces (when compared with “heavies” on longer range strategic sorties)
– did it enter combat in different theatres and/or later or in some other way different from its tactical contemporaries (especially B-25)

There’s a film (and maybe video) out there that perhaps sheds some light on this.
http://b-26mhs.org/b26/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=360&Itemid=116

Don

1) Ongoing improvements to the aircraft, greater experience of the type, tactical changes to employ the aircraft in its most suitable role

2) It was bloody fast

Moggy

I agree about the ongoing improvements and the greater experience with the type, particularly regards accidents. As for the tactical changes, this is one of the things I’m trying to get to the bottom of. As far as I’m aware, the B26 was generally employed in a conventional medium bomber role. That is to say they pretty much always flew at medium altitudes, within range of all sorts of groundfire and enemy aircraft. I’ve even seen footage of Marauders attacking from remarkably low levels, perhaps under 1,000ft. This certainly isn’t the kind of operation that would normally generate low loss rates, whatever the merits of the particular design of aircraft.

Yes, it was also ‘bloody fast’ for it’s class, which might have helped. However, again from all I’ve seen it appears that 26’s usually operated in large-ish formations, and couldn’t just always go flat out. A cruising formation of 26’s wouldn’t be all that much faster than a formation of B25’s would it? Additionally, although it was quick for it’s size, it still wouldn’t be able to out-run enemy fighters or be so quick as to throw the aim of AA gunners?

I’ve always loved the Marauder, as others have said it just looked right. Despite my long-running interest in the type, I’ve never read/ heard a full explanation for it’s great success, hence the creation of this thread.

It was also known as the Martin murderer, I would add that many of its problems with engine failures were exacerbated, because the engine feathering system was electrically powered, and that ground crews with little experience on type used to drain the batteries during mantainance,(unintentionally) causing there to be insufficient power on take off to feather a failed engine; they were reputed not to be able to fly on one engine (on take off), however I have read accounts that contradict this.

It is possible that its high survival rate is a combination of a strong airframe, and the fact that the crews didn’t think it was capable of defending itself, unlike the early days of the B17, and flew it accordingly.

It was bloody fast

And I might add, a very handsome aircraft..it just looked right.

So, my question essentially is (1) what led to this drastic reversal of fortune and (2) why did the type seemingly survive so much better than it’s peers (eg.B25)?

1) Ongoing improvements to the aircraft, greater experience of the type, tactical changes to employ the aircraft in its most suitable role

2) It was bloody fast

Moggy

“The plane distinguished itself as “the chief bombardment weapon on the Western Front” according to an US Army Air Forces dispatch from 1946, and later variants maintained the lowest loss record of any combat aircraft during World War II. Its late-war loss record stands in sharp contrast to its unofficial nickname “The Widowmaker” – earned due to early models’ high rate of accidental crashes during takeoff.”

OK I took that from Wiki so the usual doubts about its correctness apply, but it still tells the story.

Moggy

It’s true the B26 wasn’t popular initially. As has been mentioned above, the high wing loading lead to a number of accidents where pilots tried to bring the aircraft in at more conventional lower speeds. This was where the ‘widow maker’ comments came in. Early models (B26A & B) also had a short, stumpy tailfin which meant that the aircraft also had a high engine-out controllability speed. (IIRC, a single engine landing had to be performed even faster than a normal one to maintain directional control).

These early problems were largely overcome by increasing the wingspan, fin/rudder height, and horizontal tail span, in addition to lengthening the fuselage and gradually increasing the wings angle of incidence (a slight increase on the C model, and then even more so on the F’s and G’s). The first really decent model was the B26C, and it was these mid-range models that were ‘in the thick of it’ in Europe.

Training was also improved, with the emphasis being on the low speeed handling and landing approach techniques. This drasticly reduced the number of pilot error-related crashes.

The early B26’s were also used as torpedo bombers (!) in the Pacific theatre, flying from bases in Australia. As can be imagined, it was not a great success in this role and the B26 was largely withdrawn from the theatre within a few months. Likewise, when they were first deployed in Europe they were under 8thAF command, and a series of tactical misjudgements led to them being badly mauled (all but one aircraft was lost on the second raid, and that waso nly because the survivor turned back early with engine troubles).

After all this however, the B26 became highly successful (or so it seems) with the USAAF in Southern and Northern Europe, and with the RAF and SAAF in the Med. theatre.

So, my question essentially is what led to this drastic reversal of fortune and why did the type seemingly survive so much better than it’s peers (eg.B25)?

Weren’t the problems to a degree developed out with further revisions?

Eh, am I missing a bit of tongue in cheekery here?!
I don’t know much about Maruaders, but I thought the type was infamous for being tricky to handle, partly due to high wing loading, killing its own crews and thus not being able to be used to full advantage. Was’nt it nicknamed ‘flying prostitute’ and ‘flying coffin’?

Sitting as I am just two miles from ‘Rougham Field’ I can’t conceal a rueful smile.

Moggy