soc.history.war.world-war-ii

"Cubdriver" wrote in message
news:85slt3dovu8gg4n7gghfiv3moisec4tqd2@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:16:52 -0400, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
> wrote:
>
>>Ah yes, of course, the US mediums were relatively short ranged for
>>their size, like 1,100 miles for the B-26 and 1,350 miles for the B-25
>>compared to the Japanese. Having more of a brief to be survivable.
>
> Well, I think the brief for American army aircraft designed in the
> 1930s was to defend the country from offshore surface raiders. The
> idea was to sink enemy ships before they could launch an attack upon
> American targets.

I know the sink the approaching enemy fleet etc. was the justification
for the B-17, the idea of sinking them a long way from the coast, since
strategic bombing was an idea that dare not be spoken about .

What is the evidence things like the B-25 and B-26 were also officially
designed as anti ship as opposed to the tactical bombers they were
used as in WWII? I know they were designed as medium bombers.

Does anyone know the full details of Air Corps circular proposal
39-640, at least in terms of what the targets were expected to be?

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.