Single Engined Dive/Torpedo Light-Bomber

[KJ_Lesnick]

The USAAC never thought dive-bombers were all that important because they were slow and couldn't be used as a fighter: As a result they generally developed them almost as if they were going through the motions, and eventually graduated to twin engined designs revolving more around speed than diving performance like the A-14/A-18/A-20, and eventually the A-26

The USN realized dive bombers were important because they realized even the infallible Norden couldn't reliably hit small ships (despite fallaciously believing they could easily hit large ships with it); the USMC saw their immediate use in CAS operations.

While the USAAC/USAAF bloated their attack-planes into twin-engined aircraft: The USN refined the single engined design with the following

• SB2U: Cleaner lines, monoplane construction, closed canopy combined with retractible gears
  
• BT-2/SBD: Bigger engine and greater speed; redesigned swiss-cheese dive-flaps, redesigned landing-gear, more speed
  
• SB2C: Bigger engine; internal weapons bay with bomb-crutch to allow effective dive-bombing release; superior speed
  
• TBF: Bigger engine; internal weapons bay for lower drag; upper and lower guns for superior defensive armament; good communications systems
  
• XTBU: Bigger engine; internal weapons bay for lower drag; upper and lower remote control, powered turrets for improved defensive armament; good communications systems; attachable radar for AEW work
  
• SB2D: More powerful engines; laminar-flow wings; nose-gear; upper and lower, powered and remote controlled turrets for superior defensive armament
  
• TB2D: More powerful engines; nose-gear; possibly the biggest bomb-load ever used for a carrier-plane up to that point; remote-controlled, powered turrets for defensive armament; improved speed
  

.
The USAAF only began pursuing single-enigned dive-bombers in the early 1940's after seeing the Luftwaffe plow their way across Europe with them which included the A-24, A-25, the A-31 and A-35, and the A-33; only the A-24 and A-35 were used in combat in the United States.

The USN started entertaining the idea of using planes that could do dive-bombing and torpedo-bombing missions (the level bombing mission was largely unnecessary for ship-attacks since 1940) and several planes were conceived around this idea including the BTD, BTM/AM, BTC, BT2C, BT2D/AD/A-1, and BTK which generally lacked defensive armament, many lacked bomb-bays even, all but one had a single crew and were basically designed like big fighters with speed, agility, and bomb-load being the goal.  Something which the USAAF actually pursued, albeit unwittingly in 1942 with the A-36

It was basically a P-51 with a redesigned radiator and speed-brakes: It was purchased because there wasn't enough money (hard to believe in war) to buy the P-51's so they bought this instead.  Top speed was less than the P-51, though it was still regarded as maneuverable enough to avoid the need for defensive armament, and used dive brakes to augment controllability in dives: Despite the belief that they were worthless, they turned out to be very effective.

While probably unconnected to the A-36, the USAAF did pursue some ideas of single-engined dive-bomber/torpedo-bombers with speed and agility instead of defensive armament.  One was based on the BTC and was called the A-40, and then there was the XA-41.

The XA-41 was built by Vultee and it had numerous traits from the A-31 and A-35 designs, but had a single crew, no defensive armament, and both an internal bomb-bay, and bomb-racks on the wings.

• It's large wing gave it the ability to outmaneuver a P-51B
  
• It's bomb-bay could carry 3,200 pounds; 3,200 pounds could also be carried on the wings
  
• The plane could carry 1,000 pounds of bombs along an 800 nm radius
  
• Top speed was 363 mph, though some say 354
  

The USAAF ultimately rejected it because of the fact that they felt the P-47 could do the job just as well (though I'm uncertain if a P-47 could carry 1,000 pounds of bombs along an 800nm radius), and the larger bombers such as the A-26 were favored (though I'm not sure if they were as good in this form of close in diving attack).  They also deleted the dive-bombing capability foolishly because of the belief that the German planes were taking too many losses

The Germans were taking too many losses because the Ju-87 wasn't maneuverable enough and didn't have fighter cover because we were eradicating those whenever we could: We on the other hand had aerial supremacy, and the A-41 was more agile in turns than some fighters so that wasn't really an honest comparison.

How do you think the XA-41 would have turned out?

[zenrat]

How do you think the XA-41 would have turned out?

Something like this.

[dadlamassu]

XA 41

[KJ_Lesnick]

zenrat

Something like this.

Well, you probably got the paint-job right, but I kind of meant in terms of it's survivability over the years compared to say the AD/A-1