North American A-36 Apache

[lyric1]

Please, someone post a picture of an A-36 with 20mm cannons.  The first person that can post one from an operational squadron will win a date with Mensa.  Somehow, I think Mensa is going to end up dateless.


ack-ack

As you requested & why stop at 1 picture.
You can keep Mensa for your self though.



111Th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron.














Not an A-36 technically but a RAF MK1A is in the ball park a colour picture no less as well. Possibly a 168 squadron or 225 squadron not quite sure.

[Krusty]

As you requested & why stop at 1 picture.

Sorry, those are not A-36s. A-36s never had cannons. Those are Mustang Mk.Is that the USAAF took from an RAF order.

The A-36 had subtle differences, even though it was the same general design. These included air brakes for dive bombing. The Mustang Mk.Is with cannons were used by the USAAF but if one is requestion an "A-36" for inclusion into this game, the A-36 never had cannons.

[lyric1]

Sorry, those are not A-36s. A-36s never had cannons. Those are Mustang Mk.Is that the USAAF took from an RAF order.

The A-36 had subtle differences, even though it was the same general design. These included air brakes for dive bombing. The Mustang Mk.Is with cannons were used by the USAAF but if one is requestion an "A-36" for inclusion into this game, the A-36 never had cannons.

Can only go by what the web sites say.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.michael-reimer.com/CFS2/CFS2_Profiles/MTO_Allies_12_USAAF-Dateien/North%25252520American%25252520A-36A%25252520APACHE_400x150_002.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.michael-reimer.com/CFS2/CFS2_Profiles/MTO_Allies_12_USAAF.html&usg=__eBI2Y66fVG2IxZmTWsQuBjkF0xw=&h=150&w=400&sz=41&hl=en&start=36&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=xIxMQjCrLlGXNM:&tbnh=47&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Da36%2Bapache%2Bwith%2B20%2Bmm%2Bguns%26start%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1T4GGLL_enUS358US358%26ndsp%3D18%26tbs%3Disch:1

[Krusty]

I don't know the specifics but it is very likely they served with mixed units, being "generally" a A-36 unit with similar Mustang Mk.I's thrown in.

Later you also found P-51Bs flying alongside P-51Ds well into the closing days of the war.

2 separate craft.

[lyric1]

I don't know the specifics but it is very likely they served with mixed units, being "generally" a A-36 unit with similar Mustang Mk.I's thrown in.

Later you also found P-51Bs flying alongside P-51Ds well into the closing days of the war.

2 separate craft.

So in summery based off the web site do you agree that the A-36 did see combat?

[Krusty]

That's not in question. He was asking to see a 4x20mm armed A-36 because there were none. In other words he knew there were none to show. The A-36 only ever had 50cals.

[lyric1]

That's not in question. He was asking to see a 4x20mm armed A-36 because there were none. In other words he knew there were none to show. The A-36 only ever had 50cals.

  So the quote over the picture is wrong about it being an A-36?

[Karnak]

  So the quote over the picture is wrong about it being an A-36?

Yes.

[lyric1]

Yes.

Well just another reason I guess to careful about what is on the internet I guess.

[Chalenge]

They are also NOT Mustang Mk Is they are Mk IAs. 168 and 225 squadrons both used Mustang 1As with 168 Squadron retrieving their 'loaners' from 225 just prior to D-Day so they could be at full strength and provide constant photo updates.

Mustang Is were the first Tac/R photo types to serve the RAF but as you can tell in their history the Mustang IA was the 'defining type' for which they drew so much pride. In flying this mission description it should be obvious that losses will occur at a higher than usual rate. The British did what they could by providing a 'weaver' to cover the photo plane but that usually meant the loss of the weaver plane even if he could help the mission plane escape (in the event of being bounced).

The A36 was a seperate airplane designed to fit a mission role that Kindelberger foresaw long before the USAAF did. At the time there was a quite an argument over the role of fighters being pure fighter or multi-role. Multi-role was seen as more of an infantry/cavalry support role by the traditional army corps and as bomber escort and attack roles by the more modern thinkers. To look back today and say the A36 was this or lacked that is not giving it the fair chance it deserves. For the time and in the role it was designed for the A36 was deadly accurate and a marvel of engineering.

The RAF only received one A36 for evaluation.

Some of you are also under the impression that the P-51/Mustang IA was heavier than the P-51A/B/C/D but that is not true. The P-51A and the P-51/Mustang IA were (I would say) identical. If you can provide verifiable manufacturers data stating otherwise I might accept it but the only figures I have seen are of the P-51 with a combat load and the P-51A as empty (no comparison). The cannon version then would be 800 lbs lighter than the B/C and 1250 lbs lighter than the D model in their empty states. That also means the B/C/D would be much heavier in combat trim.

Give me a P-51 and then come on down in the weeds and lets play! 

[Krusty]

That's a very far stretch, challenge...

Very far.

The P-51 showed so much promise that the Army couldn't pass up on it. Only problem is the politics at the time meant they were allowed only close support/attack craft (politics, budget, or both). So they asked for a Mustang in ground configuration.

Not only was it unecessary, it was not "decidedly accurate and a marvel of engineering" -- no more so than, say, an SBD dropping a bomb, or a stuka, or a P-51D with bombs, or a P-40E with bombs, or a P-47 with bombs. Compared to the fighter-specific role of the RAF mustangs, there's a very good chance the "ground attack" version (A-36) had additional armor plating for its role, as well as the additional weight of the mechanisms to deploy the speed brakes. That's not counting the structural strengthening to add durability in dive pullouts, the ability to carry outboard wing bombs (which the RAF mustangs did not have as far as I recall seeing).

Might as well suggest the 190F8 was no different from the 190A8. Specific roles have specific requirements and have their own "baggage" inherrent with the design/production requirements. Fw-187 Falke was a very powerful plane for its time, great plane that could have turned the tide early in the war, but once loaded down with extra weight, a rear gunner, and "designed" for the zerstorer role, it was lackluster. You can't just say the Mustang and the A-36 were the same. Doesn't work that way. Close? Maybe, sure. Same? No.

[Steve]

In your dreams.  The P-51 is an easy kill for a Mossie in most cases.

 

[Chalenge]

That's a very far stretch, challenge...

Sorry Krusty but as usual your understanding of the sequence of events leading up to the acceptance of the Pony is missing any resemblance to reality. The Army left the two 'evaluation' ponies sitting on an apron for two years before sending them to Pensacola for gun trials... and not to test the pony... it just so happened that the gun trial revealed the pony was an 'engineering marvel.'

Steve... remember that 'in most cases' noobs are flying the pony.

[Karnak]

 

Sadly, it is so in AH.  I don't think the Mossie should be able to out turn them like it does in AH.  I don't think it is that the Mossie turns too well, I think the P-51 might be performing too poorly in sustained turns.  The P-51 has two things over the Mossie in AH, speed and roll rate.  The Mossie has acceleration/climb, turning and fire power.  A good P-51 pilot will win, speed being what it is, of course but an average or poor pilot just gets the E bled out of their P-51 and then it dies or they realize they are losing their E and then they "extend" a sector or two.

Of the top fighters in AH, I never have qualms about engaging a P-51.  It isn't that I never lose, but I always feel like I have the better fighter.

[Ack-Ack]

The A36 was a seperate airplane designed to fit a mission role that Kindelberger foresaw long before the USAAF did. At the time there was a quite an argument over the role of fighters being pure fighter or multi-role. Multi-role was seen as more of an infantry/cavalry support role by the traditional army corps and as bomber escort and attack roles by the more modern thinkers. To look back today and say the A36 was this or lacked that is not giving it the fair chance it deserves. For the time and in the role it was designed for the A36 was deadly accurate and a marvel of engineering.

The sole reason for the A-36 being produced was not because of some 'vision' that Howard Kindelberger had, but rather to get enough funds to keep the P-51 in production.  There were no funds for new fighter contracts for the 1942 fiscal year but there were funds for attack aircraft, so General Echols ordered modifications to the P-51 to turn it into a dive bomber. 

Some of you are also under the impression that the P-51/Mustang IA was heavier than the P-51A/B/C/D but that is not true. The P-51A and the P-51/Mustang IA were (I would say) identical. If you can provide verifiable manufacturers data stating otherwise I might accept it but the only figures I have seen are of the P-51 with a combat load and the P-51A as empty (no comparison). The cannon version then would be 800 lbs lighter than the B/C and 1250 lbs lighter than the D model in their empty states. That also means the B/C/D would be much heavier in combat trim.

I really don't recall anyone mentioning the weight other than you to deflect having to show any proof that the first production fighter Mustangs (P-51A) the USAAF received came with 20mm cannons like you claimed.  So far you haven't shown that proof at all, just like with the Iwo Mustangs.

ack-ack