A26 Invader
- Episode aired Aug 7, 2009
YOUR RATING
Photos
Paul Moga
- Self - Host
- (as Paul 'Max' Moga)
Storyline
Featured review
Snazzy and Effective.
The A-26 Invader was introduced in October, 1944, and was involved in every conflict that followed until finally retired in 1969. There was no other airplane quite like it.
It was a twin-engine medium bomber or ground attack aircraft that excelled at both tasks. The famous B-17 heavy bomber could carry about 8,000 pounds of bombs and could make a top speed of about 270 miles per hour.
The A-26 carried half that load at 350 miles per hour and, with emergency boosters, up to more than 370. The ground attack version carried eight .50 caliber machine guns in the nose. The top turret carried two more and could be aimed ahead to supplement the eight fixed guns. With cheek packs added, the total came to eighteen heavy machine guns.
The narration isn't exactly poetic. "The end of the Invader dips into a wall of secrecy." (How do you dip into a wall?) But it's surprisingly candid and introduces material that I've never heard mentioned elsewhere, such as the airplane's first use in Vietnam by the French and later by the USAF that, by international law, had to be under the command of a Vietnamese officer. So the early missions were flown by American crews and carried one impotent Vietnamese as a passenger.
There's also a neat history of the A-26's precursors, the much slower B-25s and B-26s and the less glamorous Douglas A-20 Havoc. And several interesting observations are made. One is that after World War II, no one really wanted to fight a convention war because the inventory of weapons now included nuclear bombs.
Ever since then, the wars -- ubiquitous as they've been -- have been brief or else insurgencies. And the A-26 has been successfully used in the ground attack role in almost all of these guerrilla wars. It's not jet powered so it has slow speed, long lingering time, long range, and is extremely effective. We haven't been anxious to find a replacement. Why? We were more interested in building the more bewitching supersonic fighters and long-range bombers. We still are.
Let me put on my editorial hat for a moment and give an example, quoted from Wikipedia, regarding the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning, which is intended for multiple uses including ground attack.
"The program is the most expensive military weapons system in history, and it has been the object of much criticism from those inside and outside government — in the US and in allied countries. Critics argue that the plane is "plagued with design flaws," with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time, instead of ... (identifying and fixing) defects before firing up its production line." By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget (and) seven years behind schedule." Critics further contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill."
The A-26 was allowed to die a dignified death, flown until they were exhausted, and then scrapped. There hasn't been any evidence of a comparable replacement for it.
It was a twin-engine medium bomber or ground attack aircraft that excelled at both tasks. The famous B-17 heavy bomber could carry about 8,000 pounds of bombs and could make a top speed of about 270 miles per hour.
The A-26 carried half that load at 350 miles per hour and, with emergency boosters, up to more than 370. The ground attack version carried eight .50 caliber machine guns in the nose. The top turret carried two more and could be aimed ahead to supplement the eight fixed guns. With cheek packs added, the total came to eighteen heavy machine guns.
The narration isn't exactly poetic. "The end of the Invader dips into a wall of secrecy." (How do you dip into a wall?) But it's surprisingly candid and introduces material that I've never heard mentioned elsewhere, such as the airplane's first use in Vietnam by the French and later by the USAF that, by international law, had to be under the command of a Vietnamese officer. So the early missions were flown by American crews and carried one impotent Vietnamese as a passenger.
There's also a neat history of the A-26's precursors, the much slower B-25s and B-26s and the less glamorous Douglas A-20 Havoc. And several interesting observations are made. One is that after World War II, no one really wanted to fight a convention war because the inventory of weapons now included nuclear bombs.
Ever since then, the wars -- ubiquitous as they've been -- have been brief or else insurgencies. And the A-26 has been successfully used in the ground attack role in almost all of these guerrilla wars. It's not jet powered so it has slow speed, long lingering time, long range, and is extremely effective. We haven't been anxious to find a replacement. Why? We were more interested in building the more bewitching supersonic fighters and long-range bombers. We still are.
Let me put on my editorial hat for a moment and give an example, quoted from Wikipedia, regarding the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning, which is intended for multiple uses including ground attack.
"The program is the most expensive military weapons system in history, and it has been the object of much criticism from those inside and outside government — in the US and in allied countries. Critics argue that the plane is "plagued with design flaws," with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time, instead of ... (identifying and fixing) defects before firing up its production line." By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget (and) seven years behind schedule." Critics further contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill."
The A-26 was allowed to die a dignified death, flown until they were exhausted, and then scrapped. There hasn't been any evidence of a comparable replacement for it.
helpful•00
- rmax304823
- Nov 27, 2015
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content