Douglas A-26B/ A26C Invader Specs

[Debonair]

Originally posted by cobia38
its cute !!
 I WANT ONE !!!!!:D

i can sell you one for $180,000

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by tedrbr


Haven't seen any reference or photos to the 75mm being used in combat, or the 37mm's even being outfitted, but 30 A-26B's were delivered with 75mm nose cannon, and the A-26B-16: (2 aircraft, no further specific information), A-26B-51: (6 aircraft, no further specific information), A-26B-56: (19 aircraft, no further specific information) small block orders, as well as use by the Grim Reapers, lead me to believe that a few did get fielded and used, most likely in anti-shipping operations like those performed by the B-25's and A-25's.... especially among the Grim Reapers.

The only references to any A-26Bs that had a 75mm cannon was the one used in 1941 as a test prototype of different gun packages.  I could find nothing that referenced "30 A-26Bs that were delivered to active combat units with a 75mm cannon".

I wonder though if the cannon was a 75mm howitzer like the ones in the B-25G and H.

ack-ack

[Guppy35]

A-26 is a beauty but if they add other twins to the game, there are others that saw much more widespread combat use that I'd like to see before hand such as the B25 or the Beaufighter.

The A26 would be a limited asset outside of latewar with not much scenario use outside of a 1945 ETO bit.

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
.....  I could find nothing that referenced "30 A-26Bs that were delivered to active combat units with a 75mm cannon".

I wonder though if the cannon was a 75mm howitzer like the ones in the B-25G and H.

ack-ack

Production numbers I have are listed in second post of this thread.

The block numbers have 30 produced and delivered, as in to the USAAF.  No idea if they saw combat, were used as trainers, re-fitted,.... that level of detail on A-26 Invader use has been difficult to track down.  Field refits are even dicier since the B and C noses were interchangeable between planes when repairing or salvaging aircraft, and the B-model nose has six configurations of its own (seven if you count the change to 8 vertically stacked .50's later in the war).

The 75mm was manually loaded (assisted by a ram) by a gunner sitting on a jump-seat next to the pilot, fired electronically by the pilot, and has 23 inches of maximum recoil (not solid mounts like some B-25 conversions).  It was 133 inches long reaching back into the cockpit and weighed 693 pounds.

The slow rate of fire was one of the reasons for the switch to the 8 nose mounted .50's becoming the standard later on for B-models, along with refit to 6 wing-mounted internal .50's, rather than 8 .50's in gun pods on wing racks.  Large numbers of .50's with API proved more effective than the 75mm.  But some AHII pilots like the idea of a "spud gun", so I keep mentioning it.

There is some mention to it in the Pilot's Training Manual.

A-26 is a beauty but if they add other twins to the game, there are others that saw much more widespread combat use that I'd like to see before hand such as the B25 or the Beaufighter.

The A26 would be a limited asset outside of latewar with not much scenario use outside of a 1945 ETO bit. -- Guppy35

I'm arguing more on it's perk-worthiness than use in SEA and EW/MW arenas.  Buff drivers need something other than the Arado to spend perks on.  Bomb-and-bail runs becoming too common.

[Ack-Ack]

From an article in Air Classics Magazine, August 2002.

The third prototype, and last A-26 built at El Segundo, was the XA-26B which had a solid nose fitted with the massive 75mm cannon. Over the course of testing, this nose was modified several times to accommodate changes in the mounting of the 75mm weapon and the addition of a 37mm cannon.

There were problems with late delivery of components from outside manufacturers while the government itself was having difficulties supplying government-furnished equipment (GFE) such as propellers and engines. Also, production tooling was well behind schedule and the non-standard prototype tooling was transferred to the production line so the first six production A-26s were built with this equipment. At this point, the government accused Douglas of not having enough interest in producing weapons of war - concentrating instead on producing a new (and profitable) post-war generation of civil transports (Douglas was designing the huge C-74 transport for the Army and was proposing a civil version known as the DC-7 which in no way was like the DC-7 that went into production. As an apparent form of retribution, the AAF Production Division at Wright Field ordered Douglas to transfer two-thirds of the personnel assigned on the C-74 to the A-26. Also, the AAF instructed Douglas that "no engineers were to be utilized in improving crew comfort or arrangement in cargo planes unless specifically authorized by Wright Field.")

Problems were also becoming apparent with the wing. The A-26 wing was built around eight inboard and eight outboard spars. Each outboard spar was different from its fellow and required a special manufacturing arrangement. The lack of milling machines was a major problem and General Oliver Echols who was attempting to rectify A-26 production problems started giving consideration to using milling machines held by various Boeing production plants until, as he stated, "such time as the machines ordered for the A-26 program are delivered." Sub-contractor Beech Aircraft, who was to make the spars for the A-26s being built at Tulsa, was also awaiting its milling machines.

Problems continued and in a damning indictment for both company and military, it was not until the end of 1944 that the decision was made that the Long Beach plant would produce A-26Bs with a solid nose containing either six or eight machine guns while the Tulsa facility would discontinue building A-26Bs in favor of glass nose A-26Cs. All the while there was a war going on and the aircraft were sorely needed at the combat fronts. During this time, plans for 37mm and 75mm variants joined the night fighter in the heap of discarded A-26 ideas.

copy of article: Invader Part I

Would be nice if you could cite some sources that can show if any A-26Bs were every deployed with a 75mm and to what units to back up your claims.

So far, everything that I've looked up shows that while initial designed did call for a 75mm and a 37mm to be used on the A-26B, the idea was scrapped and only the prototype test models carried that armament.


ack-ack

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack

Would be nice if you could cite some sources that can show if any A-26Bs were every deployed with a 75mm and to what units to back up your claims.

So far, everything that I've looked up shows that while initial designed did call for a 75mm and a 37mm to be used on the A-26B, the idea was scrapped and only the prototype test models carried that armament.

ack-ack

Actually, your article points indirectly to it,

Changes were also coming in from the combat fronts. Four early production aircraft were rushed to the Fifth Air Force during mid-1944 for combat testing with the 13th Bombardment Squadron, 3rd Bombardment Group, in New Guinea. The pilots flying the aircraft (A-26B-5-DLs) really liked the A26's high speed and response to throttle settings but when the under wing .50caliber gun packs were added, they were a bit dismayed by a 25 mph drop in speed due to the extra drag.

As by the production numbers I've got, the Block 5's were outfitted and delivered with:

A-26B-5: (30 aircraft), without the camouflage, and with 1 × 75 mm cannon in the nose plus 2 × 0.50 in (12,7 mm) machine guns on the left. (Nose guns had 400 rpg.  Barbettes carried 500 rpg.)

.  
These also had the original framed canopy that pilots complained about and was replaced with the bubble canopy.  So, at least 4 Block 5's were sent to the POT/Far East Air Forces for evaluation, and I'm guessing some numbers from original 30 delivered to the USAAF went to other AO's for similar evaluation.  I knew 5th got 4, but did not know which Block numbers before.

Does not necessarily mean they saw combat, but it is possible, depending on how much evaluation was done, by whom, and how aggressively, in each of those AO's, as well as back in the States.

The eight .50s were standardized by Block-B-15, New canopy by Block-B-30, internal wing guns by Block-B-50, C-models were not produced after the Block-C-55 run.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Pyro
We can't do a remotely operated turret?  Oh crap, I need to pull the B-17G out of the game right away.

I just saw this


Skuzzy, isn't what I typed one of the reasons given for "why don't we have the B-29"?? I'm pretty sure somebody on staff said that, but I could be wrong. It's been tossed around so much I could be remembering it wrong. Is this an urban myth, or is it really one of the problems with bringing the B-29 to AH? (It'd be good to know if it's a myth or not)

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by tedrbr
Actually, your article points indirectly to it,


As by the production numbers I've got, the Block 5's were outfitted and delivered with:
.  
These also had the original framed canopy that pilots complained about and was replaced with the bubble canopy.  So, at least 4 Block 5's were sent to the POT/Far East Air Forces for evaluation, and I'm guessing some numbers from original 30 delivered to the USAAF went to other AO's for similar evaluation.  I knew 5th got 4, but did not know which Block numbers before.

Does not necessarily mean they saw combat, but it is possible, depending on how much evaluation was done, by whom, and how aggressively, in each of those AO's, as well as back in the States.

The eight .50s were standardized by Block-B-15, New canopy by Block-B-30, internal wing guns by Block-B-50, C-models were not produced after the Block-C-55 run.

You didn't read the article did you?

Problems continued and in a damning indictment for both company and military, it was not until the end of 1944 that the decision was made that the Long Beach plant would produce A-26Bs with a solid nose containing either six or eight machine guns while the Tulsa facility would discontinue building A-26Bs in favor of glass nose A-26Cs. All the while there was a war going on and the aircraft were sorely needed at the combat fronts. During this time, plans for 37mm and 75mm variants joined the night fighter in the heap of discarded A-26 ideas.

ack-ack

[tedrbr]

Yes, I did read it.  Also the part where the original focus was the Army Air Force wanting a "flying cannon".  Also seen the Pilot's Training Manual which lists the 75mm in it.  And the production block numbers.  

Because the 75mm was dropped does not mean that that none were built beyond the prototype.  The 8-nose gun .50 in two vertical stacks became the standard, but many 8-gun and 6-gun horizontal rowed nose versions were built before that.

I've also read articles and websites that referred to the C-model as the hard nosed model with the nose guns.  I've seen pics posted claiming to show Invaders that were actually B-26's or B-25 gun mods.  There is a lot of false and conflicting information out about the Invader.

Of note, I would point out that the comment about the 75mm and 37mm discarded comes after the mention of the dedication of the Tulsa and Long Beach plants each to separate models at the end of 1944, but chronologically, A-26's were being built and delivered since 1943 before this decision to dedicate the plants to separate models in late 1944.  "Production totals: 1150 A-26Bs were built at Long Beach (A-26B-1-DL to A-26B-66-DL) and an additional 205 were built at Tulsa (A-26B-5-DT to A-26B-25-DT)".


From the block numbers I've got, I still believe the early Block 5's from 1943 came with the 75mm, since the USAAF still have an emphasis on a "flying canon".  These were the one's evaluated in the field starting in mid-1944.  These evaluations, and possibly the experience with the B-25 gun conversions, led to the change to internal wing guns over gun pods, revised canopy, and 8-gun pack in nose from late 1944 onward.

What I can't find is any reference to are if any 75mm armed Invaders saw combat operations or not, or any specifics on any of those first 30 Block-5 aircraft.  I also don't know what field conversion "kits" may have been packaged with the delivered craft, outside of the "ferry range fuel cell" that went in the bomb bay.

[whiteman]

this thread is a good platform to get the A 26 in.

[morfiend]

Really,who cares if the A26 gets twin37's or 75 mm cannons.14 50 cals plus the other 4 in barbettes give you up to 18 forward firing 50 cals.

 I'm on board with ya Ted. give us the A26 with a small:O  perk price:aok

[tedrbr]

Dis iz Da One uze Buff dwivers want ta VOTE fer!!!!

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Pyro
We can't do a remotely operated turret?  Oh crap, I need to pull the B-17G out of the game right away.

AGAIN... Krusty is PWNED!!!!

[Serenity]

Question: My local AFB (Hickam Air Force Base, Honolulu HI) has one of those on static. The placard under it has it labeled as a B-26, not A-26. Should I write the base commander an angry letter?

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by Serenity
Question: My local AFB (Hickam Air Force Base, Honolulu HI) has one of those on static. The placard under it has it labeled as a B-26, not A-26. Should I write the base commander an angry letter?

A-26 Invaders were reclassified as B-26's in late 40's, early 50's when Martin B-26's Marauders were all retired from service.  In Vietnam, since bombers were not allowed to be based in Thailand, they got re-designated A-26's (refurbished K models) to allow basing there as attack planes.  

So, depending on how it's painted (WWII, Korea, Vietnam) and model (B, C, K) would determine whether being listed as a B or A is correct.

Many B (solid gun nose) and C (glass nose with norden) models listings are also confusing, as the nose was interchangeable and replaceable on the Invader (which happened due to changing missions and repairing damaged aircraft, so some glass nosed "b" models and solid nosed "c" models can be found.

Plane had a long history and went through many changes.