Why the USAAF gave up on the A-36 in favour of the P-47.

[tcolvin]

Kutscha, two comments.

1. The point about using A-36s is that it would preclude the need to build and operate Lancasters. These were suitable only for laying waste cities at night, which of course would not be needed once Germany's war-making capacity had forced it to capitulate.

2. Obviously there was a reason why BC did not even try to take out the German electricity system. The reason you give is their rationalisation for refusing to bomb 'panacea' targets, unless given a direct order in writing.

3. Your statement that the radius of action in miles for the FW-190A and Me-109G can apply to Allied dive bombers is incorrect and a misunderstanding (apples and oranges). The FW-190A and Me-109G were glide-bombers, while the A-36 was a dive-bomber. Its radius of action was more than twice that quoted for German glide-bombers.

Tactical Bulletin No.23, 'The A-36 (Mustang Fighter/Bomber) in North Africa', issued by the Northwest African Air Force, dated July 1, 1943, gives the following among other figures as a conservative loading and range characteristic;
Load: 1x500lb bomb and 1x75 fuel tank; Mission type: to target, bomb, return to base; Combat radius: 300 miles.

Tony