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=116Don
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.
“# Another Lockheed P-38, forced to land in Greenland in bad weather during World War II, became buried under ice there. It was finally flown to Britain in June.”
Right… I didn’t know there was another Greenland P-38 recovered? :rolleyes:
I knew about Glacier Girl… and that she didn’t make it to England in June… what about the one the Beeb is talking about? 😉
Alertken wrote: “to spew many Sapphires and to licence it as Curtiss J65 (F-84F, B-57).”
The Wright J65 (Sapphire 100) was also used in the FJ-4 Fury (highly modified F-86E [redesigned wing and fuselage], A-4A[B, C] Skyhawk, & F11F Tiger.
To show that production problems in a well-proven engine are not always the result of a US conspiracy, the Wright-produced J65 had a tendency to suddenly use up most of its oil, sometimes resulting in engine failure on take-off (when the oil had been filled before engine start)… and sometimes shed turbine blades to a much greater extent than UK-produced ASSa. 100s)… and the Buick-produced J65s (which went in all types using the J65 as an “second source”) would often leak oil outside the casing then ignite it… resulting in cockpits filling with smoke.
Buick had so many problems making J65s that eventually the USAF cancelled their entire production contract well before it had been filled.
This also led to the USN replacing the J65 with the J52 in the A-4E on, and in fitting the J79 in the F11F-1F “Super Tiger”, instead of upgrading to the comparably upgraded ASSa. 200 series.
How about the advanced version?
WV
* WV-1
* WV-2 Warning Star – long-range airborne radar aircraft, R-3350-34 or R-3350-42 engines with 3,400 hp (2,536 kW) each, based on L-1049, later redesignated EC-121K
* WV-2E – experimental version of WV-2, later redesignated EC-121L
* WV-2Q – WV-2 equipped for electronic warfare, later redesignated EC-121M
* WV-3 – eight aircraft equipped for weather reconnaissance



R7
* PO-1W – two maritime patrol aircraft equipped with search radar based on L-749
* R7O-1 – the original US Navy designation of the R7V-1 based on L-1049D, R-3350-91 engines with 3,250 hp (2,425 kW) each
* R7V-1 – later redesignated C-121J
* R7V-1P – one R7V-1 modified for Arctic use
* R7V-2 – four prototypes with Pratt & Whitney YT34-P-12A turboprops of 4,140 shp (3,088 kW) each

Well the round fuselage, dipping into the intake which slopes inward toward the engine face, makes it look like there is a pronounced “bump”… while there really isn’t.
The “perforated” plates are a boundary layer splitter plate for the air intakes.
Actually,the E-2 has a circular dome.

These are the E-1 Tracer… the AEW version of the C-1 Trader/S-2 Tracker.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/e-1.htm



More photos here:
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=Grumman%20G-117%20E-1%20Tracer&distinct_entry=true
Well, the CL 215/415 were designed from the start for firefighting, so its not surprising they are good at all the things that make a good firebomber.
Nice info, but I guess I’ll need to wait for the 2nd & 3rd installment of the carrier ops section… as I still see nothing to indicate take-off speeds in either land-based or catapult-launched modes.
Well, after the end of WW1, the US & UK paid Krupps back royalties on several shell fuze patents, and the US paid Mauser back royalties for the bolt design on the Springfield M1903.
He is quite aware they are two separate missiles… BOTH of which are now in RAF inventories.
That was the point he was making… as anyone who wasn’t looking for a nitpick to criticise understood.
Well, as far as US surface-to-surface missiles go, Talos (SAM) was also capable of S2S use (40 to 75 mile range)… and had a nuke warhead option… how would those BCs & Cruisers have handled that?
Yes, only 7 USN ships had Talos… but Terrier also could do S2S (20 to 40+ mile range), and later had a nuke option added, and over 20 ships had that.
Colossus class:
Triumph (converted to heavy maintenance ship to support Frigates in Far Easts 1958-1965).
Majestic class:
Magnificent (returned from RCN 1957, sold for scrap 1965).
Leviathan (never completed; being used for parts for Melbourne & Sydney [RAN], Bonaventure [RCN], & Hercules/Vikrant [IN]; scrapped 1968 [after boilers & turbines removed for Karel Doorman/25 de Mayo]).
That’s all that were left in 1963 (Glory was sold in 1961, Ocean & Thesus in 1962).
Tell that to the people in Malibu, Lake Arrowhead, Riverside County… etc.
All far closer to L.A. than San Diego.
And as long as they never get within 100 miles of a combat zone that will be fine… but this middle-aged (45) former USMC Sgt (1981-1989) has real problems believing that they will never be pressed into service in combat… with the expected fatal results. 🙁
Imagine an insurgent would quit fighting for 10000 USD per man and year as bribery. For one Osprey less per year you could pay 11000 insurgents. That would bring peace and prosperity.
Imagine all you want… your fantasy is not based anywhere reality.
Most insurgents are motivated by 4 factors:
1. economic – these are those who feel the current and/or probable future holds no opportunity for them to prosper (or even get by comfortably), and feel they can only change things through violence.
2. political – these are those who feel powerless in the current and/or probable future and feel they can only change things through violence.
3. religious – these are those who feel “holy wrath” toward the current power-holders and feel they can only change things through violence.
4. racial – these are those who hold ethnic hatred toward the other ethnic groups and feel they can only gain dominance over them through violence.
Only those in #1 can be bought off… and in Iraq they are far less than 25% of the total… and are the most disorganized and ineffectual.
In Afganistan almost all are in group #3, and cannot be bought off by any amount of money. In fact, such an attempt would only enrage them further.