No, totally unrelated designs.
... cruiser bomber of 1919...
Not "cruiser bomber" but
Cruising Bomber (or
Transmission Bomber - after its shaft-drive transmission). Distinctive features claimed by Martin for his
Cruising Bomber included its propeller speed-reducing transmission; shaft-drive; retractable undercarriage; rubber strand wheel shock absorbers; shock-absorbing rudder; "Martin form" wing tips (with "double convex aileron"s); etc.
Inquiry Into Operations of the United States Air Services, Volume 2, Parts 3-4, United States Congress House Select Committee of Inquiry into Operations of the United States Air Services, pp 3225-3226
"The Air Services acquired a prototype of the bomber for testing at McCook Field, but during engine tests the airplane's transmission fell apart, so it was never flown. For reasons never explained, the airplane later was destroyed by firing incendiary machine gun bullets into it. Martin was incensed. He claimed his airplane was destroyed because [the Martin Aeroplane Factory of Elyria, OH] was not one of the manufacturers favored by Air Service officers."
Martin probably wanted the bomber back to further his 1912 ambition to fly the Atlantic (having claimed that his bomber design "was capable of transoceanic flight." [here quoting from
Winged Defense: The Development and Possibilities of Modern Air Power - Economic and Military, William Mitchell, G.P. Putnam's Sons Press, New York, 1925.]
The Army and Its Air Corps: Army Policy toward Aviation, 1919-1941, Dr. James P. Taylor, Lt Col, USAF, Retired, Air University Press, MAxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, June 1998, page 34.
Apparently, there is a photo of the Martin bomber on Page 471 of
Scientific American, Volume 123 (1920, but I'm not sure which month), with a discussion of the 7-ton bomber's transmission.