Attack and Bomber Classifications

[KJ_Lesnick]

Everybody

1. I did a little checking from various sources and it would appear from the Bostons, and the A-20A, they were capable of carrying 2,400 pounds of bombs internally: I'm confused why the A-20 couldn't.

2. I've done some searching and it would appear that wikipedia could answer something most of you couldn't: Admittedly, I'm not sure if it's valid so that's why I'm putting it here

• Most light-bombers at the 1930's usually had bomb-loads that were 2,000 pounds or less
  
• Light bombers admittedly are also classified by their ability to carry a light bomb-load a short distance (which were based on criteria of the time); Therefore, I would suppose a bomber with a load of 2,250 pounds but a short range, may be classified as a light-bomber, and not a medium based on this criteria
  

.
With that being said, I have some questions which regard to the following

• What qualified as a short, medium, and maximum range by 1935, 1940, and 1945?
  
• Would the USAAC's "Attack" Category fit at least partially into the light-bomber category of some air-forces (RAF, Luftwaffe, French Air Force prior to 1940)?
  
• Could the DH.4 and DH.9 carry out dive-bombing attacks on a routine basis without structural problems (by dive-bombing, I mean dive angles of at least 45-degrees, preferably 60-degrees or better)
  

.

chiglet

Assuming you add 9 mph for every 2,000 pounds, that would yield a takeoff speed of 142 miles an hour, or 123.4 knots: Kind of high, but I can attest that this is doable; furthermore, the A-20 was described as a plane with no serious handling flaws.


Joncarrfarrelly

Why did they have a fixed gun aft?  I could understand up front as the pilot can aim them; firing aft they couldn't necessarily aim as well...

[rickshaw]

Joncarrfarrelly

Why did they have a fixed gun aft?  I could understand up front as the pilot can aim them; firing aft they couldn't necessarily aim as well...

Did you think of looking here, Kendra/Robynne?   

[wuzak]

A scare gun was considered for the Mosquito during early development (after the prototype had flown) - though not by de Havilland.

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

So the idea was to scare the crap out of enemy fighter pilots?

[rickshaw]

rickshaw

So the idea was to scare the crap out of enemy fighter pilots?

Do think they would have been effective? 

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

Do think they would have been effective?  

At least at first: If you had a smart enemy who figured out they couldn't swing the guns and they'd attack from below and astern -- right down the middle, or attack at an angle to the plane from below.


Everybody

1. Was there any explicit restriction post 1932 that dictated that USAAC's light-bomber category had to be twin-engined?

2. Were the USAAC's attack-category planes stressed for dive bombing operations (yes I know they viewed them as too risky or something, despite the fact that the US Navy and US Marines were gutsy enough to do it)?

3. Was the USAAC's primary reason for a preference for (evidently oversized) attack-planes with a requirement for twin-engines out a concern for reliability, a heavier bomb-load or the fact that

• They felt dive bombing was unimportant
  
• They wanted a higher top-speed and cruise-speed
  
• They wanted more range as well as payload
  

[rickshaw]

rickshaw

Do think they would have been effective?  

At least at first: If you had a smart enemy who figured out they couldn't swing the guns and they'd attack from below and astern -- right down the middle, or attack at an angle to the plane from below.

Assuming the bomber pilot doesn't aim his "scare gun" by swinging his tail around the sky?

The biggest users, as far as I can tell of these "scare guns" were the Germans in WWII.  If you read the development of most of their bombers, right up to the Ar234, they were provided with the facility to mount "scare guns".  Now, either they worked or they didn't but they were there in He111/Do17/Do217/Ar234/etc.   I suspect they made life difficult for attacking Allied fighter pilots.  And of course, all bar the last of those bombers had undergun positions, Kendra/Robyn...

[wuzak]

Scare guns were there to raise morale of the crew as much as to provide actual defence. Particularly when they were fixed.

[KJ_Lesnick]

While I've actually listened to what you guys have said regarding how bomber designs were often developed based around "I want a bomber that can carry 3,000 pounds of bombs, 3,000 miles, at 300 mph" and stuff.  They were still often classified as heavy, medium, and light.

I'm curious to some degree if any bomber designs were classified arbitrarily based on some reason or another: For example

• The XB-28 was classified as a medium bomber: It had a maximum load of 4,000 pounds, and could fly 2040 with 600 pounds of bombs
  
• The XA-26A was classified as an attack-plane and light-bomber: It had a maximum load of 6,000 pounds of bombs (4,000 internal), and the ability to fly 1800 miles with 3,000 pounds of bombs (no idea how far it could fly with 600)
  

I know there was a high altitude capability for the XB-28, but the A-26A would have probably only required a twin-staged, twin-speed supercharger with intercooler to do it.