My memory has let me down. Can anyone name the British built aircraft used by the RAF as a support aircrft in WW2. It was a twin engined (radials, I think) machine but definitely had a tricycle undercart. This latter fact should be the crunch ident. factor. Marlin
The Albermarle is the only one I can think of that matches the description, the bomber that never was...
Albemarle. Yep, that's the beastie ! Although I consider myself pretty knowledgeable on the subject of military aircraft, I recentlt lost a bet ( three pints of bitter ! ) that the RAF had no tricycle twins in service in WW2. ( the P-38 doesn't count ! ). The guy I lost to didn't help by forgetting the beasts name ( even though he was a fitter in a squadron issued with 'em ). All in all, one of WW2's forgotten aircraft, methinks ! Marlin
The Lightning certainly doesn't count because it was never accepted by the RAF, however we did also use the Martin B-26 Marauder.
Lightning I agree about the Marauder. Insofar as the Lightning is concerned, I know we refused them because they were offered without turbo-superchargers,but could have sworn that I have seen pics. of the "Gabelschwanz Teuffel" painted with RAF roundels. I'll have to check that out with a pal of mine who is a recognised P-38 expert. Marlin
No, we recieved at least one which was trialed but had poor performance and handling because they lacked the superchargers of the US versions and the engines were handed differently from the US versions IIRC. They were subsequently rejected and the orders cancelled, but they did fly in RAF markings
Albermarles were designed as bombers but never actually used as such, they did give useful service as glider-tugs however and many of the gliders used in the D-day assaults were towed by Albermarles.
P-38's Getting back to the P-38, my P-38 expert tells me that "several hundred" of the 322 model were supplied to the RAF and that many were painted in RAF colours for publicity shots. However, as we know, the absence of the turbo-superchargers required that all of ther P-38's were returned to the Americans. What is interesting is why the Yanks wouldn't provide the turbo-s/chargers, or why we couldn't have made and fitted some ourselves- this was, after all, in the middle of a war and when every useable aircraft counted. Mind you, having just read "Faint Praise" : the history of American Tank Destroyers in WW2", nothing surprises me about the Yanks any more- a good example being the story of the 17 pdr. equipped "Firefly" Sherman. Whilst the Americans formally and officially conceded that this version of the Sherman was the best tank likely to be available for some few years, they bent over backwards to stop it being purchased and issued to American tank units, saying, amongst other things that "the radio was on the outside", "the number of crew members needed was too few", " we (the USA) would be unable to commence the production of 17 pdr. ammunition for at least 2-3 years". With pissant reasons like these, both British and American tank crews continued to have to use the Sherman, an undergunned and poorly armoured tank, when a better one could have so easily have been made available. !!! Marlin
Yep, don't know why I forgot them, Scanning through one of my books the RAF recieved around 1300 Mitchells.
The P-38's for the RAF had both engines rotating in the same direction (at RAF insistence, for spares and maintenance reasons). This created anuacceptable level of torque and made the aircraft extremely difficult to handle. The Yanks weren't alone in being able to be bone headed Marlin! Incidentally, in addition to NIH and anglophobia, the US believed that their 76.2mm gun was "almost" as good (ballistiaclly) as the 17 pdr (based on faulty tests), and that it fit the tank better. They also didn't believe the Brits could produce enough 17 pdr ammo, or that the 17pdr (or 76 for that matter) was a very good gun against non-armored targets. It looks like the biggest villain in the poor anti-tank performance of US tanks was the US Army Groud Forces (AGF) led by General Leslie McNair (Mac?). He championed the cavalry view of tanks and that fighting tanks should be left to tank destroyers. US Army Ordanance always seemed to be wanting to provide tanks with more armor and bigger, better guns only to be pushed aside by AGF.
The Toastinator answered that one, but I've seen photos of B-45 Tornados in RAF roundels, but we never used them.... (Shhh, don't tell the Russians.)
US v UK That's a pretty good summary, Canambridge ! I certainly wouldn't argue with any of the points you put forward to explain the American antipathy towards the 17 pdr. or their tank philosophy as expounded by McNair. Thanks for taking time out to cover my points in detail ! Marlin
Talking of which, the Albermarle and the Mitchell do show a passing resemblance. Given the weight advantages of using the composite steel and wood construction turned out to be limited, I wonder how the Albermarle would have fared in UK service if it used the same material as the Mitchell which the RAF used a lot of from mid 1942 - first prodction Albermale left the factories beginning 1942 IIRC. The size of the aircraft does look like a Centaurus could have been fitted later on so possibly removing the need to go through the Buckingham fiasco.
