Controversial Topic

[Ricky]

Ok, this has been touched on a bit in one of the strands, but here goes...

I propose that it would have made far more sense to equip the American heavy bomber squadrons in the ETO with British bombers (mainly Lancs, backed up by Mosquitos, with possibly Halifaxs too).
Why?
Well, considering that the heavier defensive armament on the B-17 & B-24 made very little difference to their vulnerability to fighters, then surely you could just as well use a bomber with lighter defences (say, oh, 8x.303 machine guns...) but a larger and more versatile carrying capacity (those lovely, long, unobstructed bomb bays).
Obviously, nothing else about the bombing missions would change - escorts of P-47s and P-51s, specially modified lead Bombardiers with Norden bombsights, etc etc.
For raids against industry, where heavier bombs are needed, use the Lanc / Halifax combination
For raids against 'softer' targets (railway marshalling yards, etc) use Mosquitos as 'Schnell-bombers'.

Now, I should point out here that I am not trying to champion British-built over American-built (even though I am English;)). And I'd rather this did not take that direction.
I just thought a nice controversial question might be fun.

So, what does anyone reckon?

[simon]

I would agree with you in most practical respects, however you have to consider how much it would harm the US daylight bombing offensive to have to take out of service and retrain their crews and crucially their instructors on British Bombers. Not to mention where these aircraft are going to come from (The Boeing Lancaster perhaps?), raising the distinct possibility that factories may have to be rejigged and retooled with equipment that may need shipping across from Britain (And consequently may be lost in transit!).

All in all I think you can figure on delays of between 6 months to a year in the US Bombing offensive beginning, in which case for all the practical advantages might you be causing more harm than good?

[Ricky]

Hmmm.... somehow I was expecting you to come up with that response Simon. [}:)]

What if (some of) the massive B-17 and B-24 production lines had been initially created to produce Lancasters? Crews could be trained up in the USA and fly over in their aircraft, as I believe was done with the 17's and 24's.

Plus - the standardisation of bomber types in the ETO would provide a far more efficient use of spare parts.

[robert]

quote:Originally posted by simon

I would agree with you in most practical respects, however you have to consider how much it would harm the US daylight bombing offensive to have to take out of service and retrain their crews and crucially their instructors on British Bombers. Not to mention where these aircraft are going to come from (The Boeing Lancaster perhaps?), raising the distinct possibility that factories may have to be rejigged and retooled with equipment that may need shipping across from Britain (And consequently may be lost in transit!).

All in all I think you can figure on delays of between 6 months to a year in the US Bombing offensive beginning, in which case for all the practical advantages might you be causing more harm than good?


One guideline for a timeframe may be the Lancaster production line that did exist in North America. Victory Aircraft in Malton, Canada, near Toronto, manufactured the Lancaster Mk.X, which was used exclusively by the Canadian No. 6 Group of Bomber Command. The fact that Merlin engines were being made by Packard just across the border was a major help in logistics.

A Lancaster was flown as a pattern aircraft to Canada in August 1942, and the first Canadian Lancaster flew on August 1, 1943, a year later.

[tenmmike]

im gonna be short here ...i think your wrong that the lancasters could fly in the daytime as the -17 and -24 did (and just barely)...the lancasters were excellant but even more vunralble to the luftwaffe (lighter defence and liquid cooled engines) then the the -17 and -24,it is my opinion that it could not have been maintained do to heavy losses and can you imagine the down time for the U.S. factories to retool and get production under way?then to ramp up to full speed ....the mind boggels at the conversion time, and that equals just that many less planes available at a time in the war when they were DESPERITLY needed... and the mossi just could not carry a large enough bomb load to hit with assurance at speed and altitude so they would have to slow down and drop in altitude,no defensive weapons = very bad day for them i think...........also were you guys aware the the U.S. paid ENGLAND $6000.PER eng in royalties?(merlin)......in closing i think the situation came out just right (uk night ..us day) for the allies ,to our very good luck

[GregP]

Lancasters were grreat planes, but I seriously doubt it would have been better for the USAAC to equip with Lancs. Some of the arguments have already been raised:

1) Who would build them for us? The Lancaster was NOT designed for production lines and was built mainly by hand in traditional British fashion. They would have been a step backwards for the US aircraft industry.
2) Tennmike is right, they WERE more vulnerable to the slings and arrows of enemy action.
3) It MIGHT have been possible to redesign the Lancaser for mass-production, but who can say what the effect would have been on flying qualities, payload, range, or anything else since it never happened?
4) Suppose it HAD happened? Would the USA armament industry have been able to equip the same number of Lancasters as B-17s with bombs? I can't say since they only had to field half the number of bombs with B-17s.
5) Lancs didn't have the range of the B-17, so some mission would not have been possible. Could Lancasters have flown the longest-range mission that the B-17s flew? I don't think so.

The Lancaster was very good, even great ... in its assigned role. How it might have fared in other roles is pure conjecture. I suspect it would have equitted itself well. Would it have been better? Or worse?

Who can say? Not me, or you in fact.

Good question, though, and it made me THINK, which is always fun!

Keep it up!

[Ricky]

Just to prolong it...

As discussed elsewhere, heavier defensive armament on bombers does not necessarily mean a marked decrease in vulnerability. And in terms of battle damage sustainability, the Lanc and B-17/24's were about equal(ish - it's a hard area to define).

In terms of industry - my proposal was not to re-tool existing production lines, but for the massive expansion of the Boeing (etc) production lines to be geared up from the start to produce Lancs (Although at that early stage it may well have been Halifaxs...)

And Bomb production - as the Lancasters carry more bombs, you will need less! More like 3/4 of the total rather than 1/2, but hey.

And as for Mossies - they only need to slow down for the actual bomb run! And with the bulged bomb bay they carried 4,000lb bombs, which is I believe around 3/4 of the B-17 load...

But I do take the points of liquid coled engines (maybe a Hercules powered version?) and the lesser range (facts & figures would help me here!)

To be honest, I probably agree with Tenmike that it did pan out quite well in reality...
[8D]

[simon]

On the matter of range I would like to redirect those interested to the UK vs US Heavies thread where the subject of range is discussed in detail. I'd hoped we'd reached agreement there but apparently not.

In order to recap, if you compare the ferry range of an unladen B-17 to the range of a Lancaster with full bomb load then yes, unsurprisingly the Lancaster comes out a poor second. If you compare the ranges of both with maximum bombloads then the B-17 comes out a poor second. Overall the B-17 had poorer, not greater range than the Lancaster so the range argument really doesn't bear up to scrutiny. Ferry range and range unladen are not good indicators of an effective combat radius since the role of the bomber is to carry and drop bombs, if you can only reach that distance without carrying any bombs then what's the point of even taking off?

[simon]

One poster now departed actually intended but never apparently got round to, explaining that liquid cooled engines weren't actually as vulnerable as modern myth suggests.

As for the Boeing Lancaster, I'll repeat what I said elsewhere for all the extra guns they couldn't stop the B-17s from being shot down in huge numbers when unescorted so these were no real advantage. For all it's guns the Flying Fortress needed fighter escort like every other bomber if it were to operate in daylight.

However, here's what I would imagine would happen. A licence built Lancaster for the USAAF I would imagine that the US would replace the .303s for Browning .50s like for like, giving a total of 8 .50 cals in turrets, possibly reducing those in the tail turret to 2 giving us a total of 6. Next I would imagine that you'd see the Lancaster B which would introduce additional beam guns. So overall our US "B" Lancasters would have a crew of 9 (assuming two additional crew for the beam guns), and between 8 and 10 .50 cals. Not much short of the B-17. I would imagine it to be slightly slower, although the extra weight of the guns and crew could be offset by reducing the RPG.

Could the US manage to keep up with the demand for Bombs? I would have thought so, the US economy was not really hugely stretched like that of Britain or Germany so I wouldn't expect bomb production to be a huge issue.

Lastly I include the following again from my earlier post on the bomber thread regarding ranges:

"I’ve been looking through one of your earlier posts and your figures for the ranges of the bombers are whilst not incorrect, unrepresentative. The British bombers are quoted at range with full bomb load, whilst the US bombers are unladen.

Figures should be:

B-29 With a 10,000lb bomb load (Half load): 5,230 km.
B-24 With a “typical” 5,000lb bomb load (Less than half load): 3,540 km.
Lancaster, full bomb load: 2,675 km.
Halifax MkIII, full bomb load: 2,030 km.
B-17, full bomb load: 1,760 km.
Halifax MkI: 1,577 km.
Stirling: 950 km."

This is not to try and convince Greg, since I believe the latter task is hopeless ;), but just to add information for the casual reader who may not have come across the earlier debate and stress once more that a bomber's maximum range invariably was affected by the requirement to actually carry bombs!

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

But I do take the points of liquid coled engines (maybe a Hercules powered version?) and the lesser range (facts & figures would help me here!)

[8D]


Well Hercules powered Lancasters were inferior to Merlin powered Lancasters in max height at least and Merlin Halifaxes were inferior to Hercules Halifaxes although the Hercules Halifax does have an advantage in a cleaned up fuselage and a 3 ft of so extension to the wingspan.

[B-24WillowRun]

Hello all for the help of this topic we need to know that the impressive and uninterupted, by way of airraides, US production was not really up to speed untill mid 1943 or so. A US licenced built Lancaster under the direction of Ford say might have been able to be pulled off. But as said before that is a lot of tooling and training that would have to be created. Also I am not shure if the British could have spared the men to be sent over to help start up the lines. This time frame though is roughly the same as Fords construction of the Willow Run plant for B-24s.

All the bombers needed escort, but the air ministry's did not think of that or really get the ball rolling. We could have had the P-51 earlier, that is with a british engine.

In all you bring up a good point but the USAAF needed to have its own aircraft and ultimatly I think that the time even if you were to take the Halifax first to produce, it needed to be ddapted to pass-production as well, would still have been on par with the B-24/B-17 build up.

what do you all think? [|)]

[simon]

Ah-ha, so that's where your name came from, I did wonder!

I read an interesting article in which the author describes the British failure to develop a Mustang type aircraft ourselves, the author was of the contention that Churchill asked the Air Ministry about it, they replied that it couldn't be done and Churchill's reply was something along the lines of "Oh, well that's that then!".

Seems a bit simplistic, but the author certainly seemed to know his stuff. Seems like one of those missed opportunities to me, if only they'd had someone like Supermarines or Hawkers do a study they may have come up with a similar solution.

Ah well, back to the What ifs...!

[B-24WillowRun]

Simon, yes the name is from the Willow Run plant at Ford. As I am resurching all things Liberator, I have taken a liking to this plant. Also like the name. I should have told you all that, or thought you might know. I also like Willow trees!

Interesting thought of Churchill. But it seems like the RAF came and asked the US air industry for a lot of things. The Mustang was in all a request by the British. They, B-24s and P-38s (I think) were given the nicknames by the RAF![^]

What ifs are always rampent, that is what makes History so fun!![:p]

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by simon

if you compare the ferry range of an unladen B-17

Is that a European unladen B-17 or an African unladed B-17?:D

[ickysdad]

On vulnerability, as I understand the US B-17/24's shot down something like 10,000 Luftwaffe fighters in the war. How many Luftwaffe fighters did the RAF bombers shoot down? Not being sarcastis just wondering.

[simon]

That's a huge chunk of the Luftwaffe creditted to B17/B24 gunners alone. Not trying to be sarcastic or argumentative either, but are you sure this is confirmed kills as cross referenced against Luftwaffe loss figures, bomber gunner claims, or bomber gunner confirmed kills, all of which could be hugely different.

Not sure about the RAF Bomber kills, but generally these are going to be dramatically lower, certainly in terms of kill-loss ratios or kill-sortie ratios just because of the nature of the night war.

In any case I'm not sure how Gunner kills claimed reflects on a bomber's vulnerability.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

On vulnerability, as I understand the US B-17/24's shot down something like 10,000 Luftwaffe fighters in the war. How many Luftwaffe fighters did the RAF bombers shoot down? Not being sarcastis just wondering.


I've read in quite a few books on the plane that the B-24 destroyed around 2,600 enemy aircraft.

[ickysdad]

Simon,
I got the info from the "Best Fighter" thread,but don't know what page it was on.If I find it later I'll edit my post.
It's on page 14 posted by Robert.

[simon]

Thanks Ickysdad, I hope no-one will mind me quoting Robert here:

"USAAF bombers claimed 9,889 air kills. I honestly don't know how accurate this latter figure is; I suspect it is somewhat less accurate than the figures for US fighter kills, because in the confusion of the action gunners in several US bombers could claim credit for the same kill,"

The wording in the first sentence is crucial here. This is the bomber gunner's claims as opposed to confirmed kills or even kills verified against Luftwaffe records and which tend to be even more inflated than fighter pilot's claims. This is no slight intended on the bomber gunners, they claimed what they thought they shot down, but there are all manner of reasons why these tended to be hugely inflated against actual losses.

If Corsarius is still lurking around these boards (And yes I'll e-mail later!), could he repost his rule for fighter claims vs actual, it's a good rule of thumb, but I can't find the original post!

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

For raids against 'softer' targets (railway marshalling yards, etc) use Mosquitos as 'Schnell-bombers'.


I’ve been reading Paul Brickhill’s ‘The Dam Busters’, it describes 617 squadron and the bombs its aircraft carried including the design history of those bombs.

There is a section which says in 1940 Wallis worked out that a 10 ton bomb exploding at a depth of 40ft would in theory throw out 12,000tons of earth leaving a crater 70ft deep, 250ft across. He worked out the circumference of the crater and from that the maximum number of men and machines that could gather round to fill it in. Working day and night they could not fill it in in less than 14 days.

He designed a 50-ton ‘Victory Bomber’ to carry it but the Air Staff turned it down.

The idea was of course resurrected with the Tallboy and Grand Slam/Lancaster combinations but imagine one or two of these going off in a marshalling yard.

[simon]

O/T I know, but PMN1 can you post a link to the new address for the Battlecruisers board, I haven't found it since it moved!

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by simon

O/T I know, but PMN1 can you post a link to the new address for the Battlecruisers board, I haven't found it since it moved!



http://pub57.ezboard.com/falltheworldsbattlecruisersfrm1

Bob's been having trouble with the server for the main board - see his message on the Forum.

[simon]

Thanks!

[B-24WillowRun]

As for the Monty Pythone bit we need not have it here.

Fot the kill clains I would have to ges it it high. I have read that B-24 gunners did have high clains and confirmed kills. One crew got 11 I think in one mission. But kills are a hard stat to confirm even more so when you flay in large 1,000 plane formations.[:p]

[Ricky]

So essentially, it's pretty much a feasible option - the only real barrier being the potential view of the Americans that
"the USAAF needed to have its own aircraft"
(Apologies for quoting your phrase out of context WillowRun)

But then, us poor Brits were using an awful lot of non-British aircraft (Lockheed Hudsons, to name but one), mostly because we had no option! ;)

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by B-24WillowRun

As for the Monty Pythone bit we need not have it here.[:p]


Your meant to say 'I dont know' then get hurled into the never ending abyss:D

[B-24WillowRun]

Ricky, that is ok about the use of the Quote. You are right the RAF used everything it could to get the job done. I am still trying to find some info about the Lancaster production in Canada.

Question all, why not make that plant for the mass production of Lancs or Halifax? [:I]

[Ricky]

Hey, I've had a great addition to my idea...

We 'allow' the Americans to produce B17s and/or B-24s for use in the ETO, but in much smaller numbers. They would then be the perfect way to patrol the Atlantic, and close the 'gap' a couple of years earlier than it actually was. With less crew (or maybe not - many eyes are better) and much less bomb load & ammo for guns (only really need a few mgs for target-straffing and about 6 or so depth charges) they would have had a lovely range & loiter ability. Plus the dual controls the US bombers had would make them ideal for long, boring patrols.

Obviously, someone is gonna question numbers (crew and aircraft) being as we are still having huge bombing offenses in Europe. But, I say to you, I have already put forward the notion that we would only need around 3/4 of the bombers used, owing to the greater load-carrying by the Hali/Lanc.

What do you reckon?

[B-24WillowRun]

So you think that you will sustain the bomber offensive with only British bombers produced in England. You are just praying that the German airstrikes move off RAF airstrips and production. Then again the German stratigic bombing was minimal so you would probable be spared there, but the airfields would be crushed after the raidar stations were taken out.

U have the point that the Liberator could have closed the atlantic gap sooner if given to Coastal Comand in numbers, but I do not think that the Halifax / Lancaster combination would be able to survive, or be that effective if only flying at night. Now bring the Halifax arms and armor up to the B-24 and change out the engines say to the P&W R-2800 and we might have a plan [:p]

[simon]

"So you think that you will sustain the bomber offensive with only British bombers produced in England"

Nope, just thinking out loud what would happen if the Boeing plants produced US Lancasters and the Consolidated plants produced US Halifaxes.

An interesting what if, I just hope Ricky isn't setting himself up to be seen as anti-American with his recent posts as I know he is certainly not!

[Ricky]

Not quite Willow - if America builds Lancs / Halifaxs for the ETO, and B-17s / B-24s for the PTO, they could over-produce the B-17/B-24 and use them for the Atlantic.

And, no problem with bunging a powerful American engine on the Halifax - it would almost certainly have happened if it was built in the US - and upgrades of armour would probably make sense. Arms, I'm less convinced about.
All these upgrades are of course made on the proviso that they would not have a bad effect on performance!

[Kutscha]

Hope you all don't mind resurecting an old thread but it was linked to in a resent thread.

When Packard was chosen to build the Merlin all the drawings had to be re-drawn. There was other changes made for American production.

The Lanc and Hallie could have been re-engines with American engines. P&W made 166,504 R1830, and 114,073 R2800 from 1941 to 1945.

Has the subject of replacing the heavies with Mossies been discussed? I don't mean all the heavies but say a ratio of 1 heavy for 4 Mossies.

[panzerjager88]

now that this has been resurrected....i've always been curious about the concept of using massed light fast bombers (the mossie really, but if the concept was good i'm sure subsequent planes would be created) to replace the typical heavy bomber formations

on paper it seems good, a comparative bomb load to the b-17 vs the mossie (at least the "pregnant" varient capable of carrying the 4000lb cookie)....smaller crew load, although more pilots overall for the same bomb tonnage which might be telling

the only problem i see is that mossie loss rates correspond to a typical "style" of combat of relatively small "pinpoint" raids and complimentary attacks along with the heavies....

to get the tonnage of bombs dropped you are going to have to come up with some novel strategies, certainly the mossie was difficult to intercept, but not impossibly so, and the massed formations or streams required to bring an acceptable number of bombs on target would give able chance for some intercepts, and not to mention flak, which i'm sure could be re-fused and sighted to cope with a faster aircraft

certainly i believe that more mossies should have been used in the bomber role and more en mass, if only to mix it up for the Luftwaffe, but they could not have been a complete replacement for the heavy bomber

[azrael]

Panzerjaeger,
I believe that the point about using Mossies compared to heavy bombers was that you would not need to drop that many bombs. Mossies achieved far better precision in bombing, even at night, than the heavies ever got. You are right of course, all proposals in that direction do not really consider the different type of mission performed by the Mossie and assume that its effectiveness in pin-point-strikes would make it suitable for a sustained strategic bombing campaign. Could be, but hard to tell.

Another question that should be asked is how many Mossies could have been build compared to heavy bombers? To my knowledge, the Brits were at about the limit of their building capacity. Yes, the Mossie required less skilled labour, but its wooden construction required a lot more handwork than the often mechanized production of metal aircraft required. Not to mention that the Mossies that could be produced were needed in their other roles as well.

[PMN1]

I can see political objections to British designs being built in US aircraft factories, "our designs arn't ggod enough eh?!?!", but what about the Mosquitto, I cant see that producing in America would annoy too many people.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by panzerjager88

on paper it seems good, a comparative bomb load to the b-17 vs the mossie (at least the "pregnant" varient capable of carrying the 4000lb cookie)....smaller crew load, although more pilots overall for the same bomb tonnage which might be telling


IIRC the typical B17 bomb load was 4000lb, made up of small (250/500lb?) bombs. The size and shape of the B17 bomb bay didn't allow for overly large bombs to be carried.

The Mosquito could be equipped to carry a single 4000lb bomb.

On that basis the number of pilots being used would be at worst 1:1, but didn't B17s require 2 pilots, compared to a pilot and a navigator/bomb aimer in the Mossie?

The B17s obviously had a disadvantage in trying to hit a precise target, as the bombs would necessarily be spread out as they are dropped. The Mossie would have a greater chance of hitting the target, but a greater risk of not hitting it at all (only having the one chance at it, as it were).Mind you the damage done by a single 4000lb bomb would be preferable to a couple of 250 or 500lb bombs, one would think.

quote:Originally posted by panzerjager88

to get the tonnage of bombs dropped you are going to have to come up with some novel strategies, certainly the mossie was difficult to intercept, but not impossibly so, and the massed formations or streams required to bring an acceptable number of bombs on target would give able chance for some intercepts, and not to mention flak, which i'm sure could be re-fused and sighted to cope with a faster aircraft


As for a massed formation, using Mossies would give the allies an opportunity to spring a surprise or two. They could build up a formation composed of bomber variants (carrying a 4000lb bomb), Fighter bombers (maybe 2 x 500lb bomb) and fighter variants. They could all be mixed in together, and from a distance would be difficult to distinguish. Once the FBs had dropped their bombs the formation would have considerable defensive capabilities, and probably so before that.

Also, once the bombers had dropped their load they would be much more able to evade attack than the heavy bombers were after they dropped their loads.

Of course production rates and priorities came into it, as well as national pride and strategies.

I personally don't think that the heavy bomber could have been replaced by the Mossies. But you would have to say that the B17 was really a medium bomber that just happened to be heavy!

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

quote:Originally posted by panzerjager88

on paper it seems good, a comparative bomb load to the b-17 vs the mossie (at least the "pregnant" varient capable of carrying the 4000lb cookie)....smaller crew load, although more pilots overall for the same bomb tonnage which might be telling


IIRC the typical B17 bomb load was 4000lb, made up of small (250/500lb?) bombs. The size and shape of the B17 bomb bay didn't allow for overly large bombs to be carried.

The Mosquito could be equipped to carry a single 4000lb bomb.

On that basis the number of pilots being used would be at worst 1:1, but didn't B17s require 2 pilots, compared to a pilot and a navigator/bomb aimer in the Mossie?

The B17s obviously had a disadvantage in trying to hit a precise target, as the bombs would necessarily be spread out as they are dropped. The Mossie would have a greater chance of hitting the target, but a greater risk of not hitting it at all (only having the one chance at it, as it were).Mind you the damage done by a single 4000lb bomb would be preferable to a couple of 250 or 500lb bombs, one would think.

quote:Originally posted by panzerjager88

to get the tonnage of bombs dropped you are going to have to come up with some novel strategies, certainly the mossie was difficult to intercept, but not impossibly so, and the massed formations or streams required to bring an acceptable number of bombs on target would give able chance for some intercepts, and not to mention flak, which i'm sure could be re-fused and sighted to cope with a faster aircraft


As for a massed formation, using Mossies would give the allies an opportunity to spring a surprise or two. They could build up a formation composed of bomber variants (carrying a 4000lb bomb), Fighter bombers (maybe 2 x 500lb bomb) and fighter variants. They could all be mixed in together, and from a distance would be difficult to distinguish. Once the FBs had dropped their bombs the formation would have considerable defensive capabilities, and probably so before that.

Also, once the bombers had dropped their load they would be much more able to evade attack than the heavy bombers were after they dropped their loads.

Of course production rates and priorities came into it, as well as national pride and strategies.

I personally don't think that the heavy bomber could have been replaced by the Mossies. But you would have to say that the B17 was really a medium bomber that just happened to be heavy!

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak


As for a massed formation, using Mossies would give the allies an opportunity to spring a surprise or two. They could build up a formation composed of bomber variants (carrying a 4000lb bomb), Fighter bombers (maybe 2 x 500lb bomb) and fighter variants. They could all be mixed in together, and from a distance would be difficult to distinguish. Once the FBs had dropped their bombs the formation would have considerable defensive capabilities, and probably so before that.

Also, once the bombers had dropped their load they would be much more able to evade attack than the heavy bombers were after they dropped their loads.

Of course production rates and priorities came into it, as well as national pride and strategies.

I personally don't think that the heavy bomber could have been replaced by the Mossies. But you would have to say that the B17 was really a medium bomber that just happened to be heavy!


Also with a Mosquito force the escorting Mustangs would cruise at the same speed as the bombers ... now that is becoming one hell of a nut to crack! And the flak forces being hunted by rockets.

Now this really is a what-if ... but in concept it approaches the US Navy fast carrier groups

<sorry about the blank entry above, seem to be having a keyboard failure>

[Tony Williams]

A few comments:

Bomber units were notorious for overclaiming fighters shot down (not deliberately, but if dozens of gunners were firing at the same plane and it went down - or even smoked a bit - they all claimed it as a kill). Postwar research revealed that only a small fraction of the claims were true. When it came to defending bombers, there was no substitute for guns in escort fighters which were about ten times as effective in terms of rounds fired for planes shot down.

The RAF formed the view early on that escort fighters couldn't compete with interceptors because they would have to carry so much more fuel that they would always be bigger and heavier. When they asked for the P-51 to be built it wasn't as an escort fighter - they didn't realise what a long range would result from a sleek airframe, a laminar-flow wing and a Merlin. To be fair though, the P-51 wasn't a great dogfighter and relied more on 'boom and zoom' tactics.

I don't see any real point in substituting the Lanc for the B-17. However, the Mosquito is a different matter. The RAF's own studies showed that it was vastly more efficient than a Lancaster for night bombing (in terms of bombloads carried, cost of construction and loss rates). Using it for escorted daylight bombing would have been interesting. It would have posed far more problems for the defences because its high speed would have given a much smaller 'window of opportunity' for an interception, and the interceptors would have burned far more fuel just chasing them. I think that their loss rates would have much lower than the B-17s'.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Lightning]

Hi All,

One plane (Mosquito); one big bomb ("cookie"): Either a direct hit ("pickle-barrel" accuracy) or a lot of noise and a wasted mission.

A heavy bomber with the same, or greater, bomb load of 500- or 750-pound bombs patterned on the target has a greater probability of knocking out that target than a 4000 pounder that is 100 yards off the mark (not an unusual occurrence). And if high-altitude bombing is required, imagine the accuracy of a 4000 lb bomb having the aerodynamic qualities of a garbage can.

There are other considerations when comparing bomb loads. The bombing of Tokyo was most devastating when large numbers of relatively small incendiary bombs were dropped. A 4000 lb "cookie" would have been far less effective than 4000 lbs of the much smaller incendiaries spread over a large area.

Also, what is the purpose of the mission? Does it require deep penetration of large bombs (e.g. submarine pens, underground production facilities, etc.), or is the target spread out over an area (e.g. railway yards, dock facilities, dispersed factory buildings, etc.)?

Suppose the target is a group of warships? What about an airfield with aircraft dispersed and having 10,000 ft runways that have to be made unusable?

In any case where a single 500 lb bomb could do the job (a bridge span, for instance), a string of eight 500-pounders would be preferable to one 4000 pounder.

When "area bombing" is the object, the "cookie" would be completely inappropriate for obvious reasons. When the demoralization of the population is the goal, the larger the area of a city directly affected, the more successful the raid.

For the above reasons, I think it is quite clear that the heavy bomber could not have been replaced by the Mosquito in WWII. Each had capabilities that the other didn't have. In some areas, there was overlapping of abilities; in others there was a clear-cut choice. They complemented each other, and this, in the long run, was the best choice of all.

Regards,
Lightning

[Tony Williams]

Actually, the 4,000 lb Cookie was specifically designed for area bombing. It was typically mixed in with lots of small incendiaries. The idea was that the Cookie blew the roofs off the buildings, thereby letting the incendiaries in where they could do some damage (landing on roof tiles or in the street wouldn't set fire to anything). The Cookie also crushed water mains, making the firemen's job that much harder.

Anyway, the Cookie was only one option for one Mark of Mosquito. They could carry a wide range of other ordnance as well, including lots of incendiaries.

And for the cost and crew of one heavy bomber you could probably have three Mosquitos (much lighter, cheaper materials, half the engines, a quarter of the crew, no gun turrets). And they could fly to Berlin and back twice in one night (or day) if you rotated the crews, so in effect you got the bombing value of six Mossies for one heavy. And they would still have a much lower loss rate...

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Wuzak]

And the Mosquito would have had more options to drop the bombs too.

They could have used varying height tactics, dropped the bomb in a dive, etc.

Being more manoueverable (even with bomb on board), the Mossie would not have, surely, required as long a run at the target at a steady speed and altitude.

I still believe that the preference of B17s dropping smallish bombs was mainly due to the size and shape of the bomb bay.

It is a similar story with the Liberator, IIRC, except that it had a larger load capcity.

As for target penetarting bombs, for use against U-boat pens, bunkers, etc, teh choice was simple - Lancaster. No US bomber in the ETO could handle such large bombs. Not sure about the B29, but they never made it into Europe did they?

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Tony Williams

And for the cost and crew of one heavy bomber you could probably have three Mosquitos (much lighter, cheaper materials, half the engines, a quarter of the crew, no gun turrets

Not forgetting less fuel - a valuable commodity.

[PMN1]

http://www.forum.fun-online.sk/viewtopic.php?t=1314&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=140&sid=e04026f49fd35c1222aa142ff20749e9

Page 8 of this post has some loss rates for B17, B24, Lancaster, Halifax and Mosquitto.

The % loss/PER TONis quite interesting.

[Tony Williams]

I'm suspicious of those figures as they don't bear much relationship to ones I've seen elsewhere, which show a loss rate for the heavies about 10x that of the Mossie.

It is important to ensure that the figures are comparing like with like. Mossies were sometimes sent on unescorted daylight raids when it was necessary to hit a high-value target precisely, and their losses then would certainly have been heavier than at night. So do these figures include all sorties of whatever type?

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[ChrisMcD]

Gents,

I suspect that you are not comparing like with like when you compare the Lancaster with the B17.

Remember the B17 was quite an old design, based on a weird concept of attacking ships in mid ocean which was the only way the USAF could get the money to build them in the mid 30's. Hence all the slander about teeny weeny bomb loads.

By the time Boeing might be asked to build Lancasters they were well on the way to flying the B29.

Fond as I am of Lancs, I think that the B29 was an order of magnitude superior.

[Wuzak]

Unfortunately the B29s didn't become operational until sometime in 1944. They never made it into Europe.

[Lightning]

Hi All,

Yes, the Mosquito could carry other bomb loads than the "cookie", but, then, nowhere near a 4000lb load. How many small incediaries could it carry? How many more Mosquitos would then be required to drop these incendiaries?

In other words, if one cookie took up the entire bomb bay area of a Mosquito, from where would all the incendiaries come that were to fall into the buildings "de-roofed" by the cookie?

Area bombing was much more efficiently accomplished by a pattern of eight 500lb bombs than by one 4000lb bomb landing in one spot. This is obvious by the mere definition of "area bombing".

Regards,
Lightning

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Yes, the Mosquito could carry other bomb loads than the "cookie", but, then, nowhere near a 4000lb load. How many small incediaries could it carry? How many more Mosquitos would then be required to drop these incendiaries?

Another one should do the trick.

quote:Area bombing was much more efficiently accomplished by a pattern of eight 500lb bombs than by one 4000lb bomb landing in one spot. This is obvious by the mere definition of "area bombing".

Apparently not. I can't recall the source but I remember reading that one of the Germans responsible for trying to keep the country going (it might have been Speer) commented on how much more destructive the RAF's Cookies were than smaller bombs - he reckoned they were in a different league altogether to the smaller bombs, in terms of their effectiveness.

This was partly because they had an extremely high charge-weight ratio of over 70% whereas a GP bomb would typically have no more than 30%. In other words, one 4,000 lb Cookie contained over 2,800 lb HE (with aluminium powder added for incendiary effect in 1943) for which you would need as many as twenty 500lb GP bombs (or a dozen medium-case 500 pounders). Even then, the smaller bombs wouldn't necessarily be as destructive - OK against housing, say, but probably not as effective against big industrial plants where it was the concentration of blast which did the damage.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Tony Williams
[quote:Area bombing was much more efficiently accomplished by a pattern of eight 500lb bombs than by one 4000lb bomb landing in one spot. This is obvious by the mere definition of "area bombing".

Apparently not. I can't recall the source but I remember reading that one of the Germans responsible for trying to keep the country going (it might have been Speer) commented on how much more destructive the RAF's Cookies were than smaller bombs - he reckoned they were in a different league altogether to the smaller bombs, in terms of their effectiveness.

This was partly because they had an extremely high charge-weight ratio of over 70% whereas a GP bomb would typically have no more than 30%. In other words, one 4,000 lb Cookie contained over 2,800 lb HE (with aluminium powder added for incendiary effect in 1943) for which you would need as many as twenty 500lb GP bombs (or a dozen medium-case 500 pounders). Even then, the smaller bombs wouldn't necessarily be as destructive - OK against housing, say, but probably not as effective against big industrial plants where it was the concentration of blast which did the damage.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk



This was especially true when the RAF joined in attacks on oil targets, also the longer duration of the raids kept the fire crews under cover for longer allowing more time for fires to take a hold.

[Double T]

Delayed fusing on some bombs would accomplish the same result. 'Might even wreak havoc on fire-fighting crews if they deemed it safe, and left shelter before the "party was over."

Tim

[Lightning]

If we're talking about knocking out a specific target (i.e. a factory building, a dam, a V-2 launching site, etc.), A big bomb on target would be preferable to a stick of smaller bombs. the only drawback is that such a hit with one bomb requires "pin-point" accuracy, and we pretty much know the chances of that--especially at night.

Again, "area bombing" is just that. No matter how you look at it (barring the A-bomb), a significant area could not be destroyed with one bomb, no matter how big it was. The destruction of Tokyo, Dresden, and Hamburg was caused by firestorm and blast due to many incendiary and high-explosive bombs, not by a few well-placed "cookies".

But if insistence is to be made on the use of a big bomb, the Mosquito can't hold a candle to the Lancaster's ability to carry a 22,000lb "Grand Slam". And remember, both the Lancaster and the B-17, in their later versions, could carry between 15,000 and 20,000 pounds of mixed conventional bomb types.

The Mosquito could only carry a 4000lb bombload in the form of the "cookie", for which it had to use a specially designed bomb bay and bomb shackles for one bomb. If any other array were to be used, the wasted space between bombs and the need for multiple racks, shackles, etc. would result in a very-much reduced bombload.

As to the inability of the Luftwaffe to intercept the Mosquito, the Bf109 and Fw190 could fly as high, or higher, and were faster. The Me262 was coming on the scene, as was the Ta152. They were all well capable of intercepting and destroying a Mosquito carrying a 4000lb bombload. The problem for the Germans at that stage of the war was not lack of capable fighters but the lack of fuel to run them and qualified pilots to fly them (not to mention the shrinking number of usable airfields from which to fly). The cookie-carrying Mosquitos would not have been so successful had they had to deal with the early war Luftwaffe like their heavy-bomber brethren did.

Herman Goering himself stated that the Allied round-the-clock bombing offensive was one of the main contributors to Germany's defeat. The vast majority of that offensive was conducted by the heavy bombers--not by a relatively few Mosquitos carrying big bombs.

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

Hi Lightning,

a few points:

Nobody said the Mossiee was immune to interception, but that it was more difficult to intercept than a B-17 or a Lanc. This is clearly true.

The Allied 'round the clock' bombing could, arguably, have been conducted by the Mossie, had more been built. The only lack would be the specialist 'earthquake' bombs, which the Lanc carried.

[pmjwright]

Just to add to the interesting debate on capabilities (hi Lightning), Mosquitos were capable of flying two missions in one night, and not infrequently they rearmed, refueled and recrewed, and returned to Berlin the same night to drop a second cookie.

And just imagine if the DH.101 Sabre Mosquito had been developed--16000 lb bomb load to Berlin at 430 mph!

Still, there is no doubt that the heavies carried the strategic bombing campaign.

Earlier it was mentioned how Lancs carried both cookies and incendiaries, or cookies and "nickels" (500 lb HE). When carrying the the bigger cookies (IIRC the 12000 lb cookie, maybe also the 8000 lb), Lancasters only carried a single cookie--no other bombs were carried.

[Kutscha]

What was the range of a B-17 with 20,000lbs of bombs on board?

Lightning, what would all those excess escort fighters be doing if they did not have B-17s/B-24s to escort?

This was the load of Halifax III, MZ906, AL*H of 429 Sqd when it was lost (crew MIA) on a mission to Essen in Oct 1944:

6 x 500 lb MC bomb
1 x 2000 lb HC bomb
5 x 1000 lb SAP bomb

total: 10,000lb

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by pmjwright

And just imagine if the DH.101 Sabre Mosquito had been developed--16000 lb bomb load to Berlin at 430 mph!





Where do you get the 16,000lb bombload from??

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi All,

Yes, the Mosquito could carry other bomb loads than the "cookie", but, then, nowhere near a 4000lb load. How many small incediaries could it carry? How many more Mosquitos would then be required to drop these incendiaries?

In other words, if one cookie took up the entire bomb bay area of a Mosquito, from where would all the incendiaries come that were to fall into the buildings "de-roofed" by the cookie?


The Mosquito could only carry 2000lb (4 x 500lb) worth of bombs in its bomb bay when not using the single "cookie".

However the early bomber marks also had hard points on the wins on which to carry a further 2 500lb bombs, IIRC. If the plane could carry 4000lb of bombs, surely it would be at least capable of carrying that even if it meant hanging them off the wing?

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning



Area bombing was much more efficiently accomplished by a pattern of eight 500lb bombs than by one 4000lb bomb landing in one spot. This is obvious by the mere definition of "area bombing".


Was area bombing the preferred choice, or was it the best option for bombers which could only carry large numbers of small ordinance?

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Again, "area bombing" is just that. No matter how you look at it (barring the A-bomb), a significant area could not be destroyed with one bomb, no matter how big it was. The destruction of Tokyo, Dresden, and Hamburg was caused by firestorm and blast due to many incendiary and high-explosive bombs, not by a few well-placed "cookies".

But if insistence is to be made on the use of a big bomb, the Mosquito can't hold a candle to the Lancaster's ability to carry a 22,000lb "Grand Slam". And remember, both the Lancaster and the B-17, in their later versions, could carry between 15,000 and 20,000 pounds of mixed conventional bomb types.

The Mosquito could only carry a 4000lb bombload in the form of the "cookie", for which it had to use a specially designed bomb bay and bomb shackles for one bomb. If any other array were to be used, the wasted space between bombs and the need for multiple racks, shackles, etc. would result in a very-much reduced bombload.

As to the inability of the Luftwaffe to intercept the Mosquito, the Bf109 and Fw190 could fly as high, or higher, and were faster. The Me262 was coming on the scene, as was the Ta152. They were all well capable of intercepting and destroying a Mosquito carrying a 4000lb bombload. The problem for the Germans at that stage of the war was not lack of capable fighters but the lack of fuel to run them and qualified pilots to fly them (not to mention the shrinking number of usable airfields from which to fly). The cookie-carrying Mosquitos would not have been so successful had they had to deal with the early war Luftwaffe like their heavy-bomber brethren did.



I thought we were talking early in teh war as well as late in the war?

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but as the German interceptor capabilities increased not only did Mosquito vulnerability increase, but so did the heavy bombers. The assumption was that, like the heavy bombers, the Mosquitos would be escorted to and from the target once that option became available.

We are also comparing the Mosquito to the B17. Because for most of the war the B17 carried a load not much more than the Mosquito could carry. The Mosquitos were also operational in Europe before the B17s arrived.

Now, I wanted to ask about the US medium bombers - Mitchell, Marauder, etc. What bomb loads could they carry, how fast and how high?

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

Was area bombing the preferred choice, or was it the best option for bombers which could only carry large numbers of small ordinance?


Is was the only option for bombers lacking the navigational capability for hitting point targets.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Lightning]

Hi All,

Wow! There are certainly a lot of "Mossie" fans out there.

First of all, the only production Mosquito capable of carrying thr cookie was the Mk BXVI, and then only because it had an oversized, bulged bomb bay and carried no armament. This was not an early war version, so it should not be compared to early war B-17s and B-24s. The early war Mosquitos cold not carry such a load.

As to external stores, they add drag as well as weight. If we disregard the aerodynamic penalties imposed by externally mounted bombs, then the P-38L comes back into the picture because it could also carry 4000lbs of bombs, and it could do a whole lot more fighting after dropping those bombs than could an unarmed Mosquito. I'm not saying that the Lightning could have done this particular task as well as the Mosquito--far from it. For this type of mission, the Mosquito had no peer among among aircraft of the same class. In the overall task of destroying the Third Reich, however, it could not replace the heavy bomber.

The subject of the diversity of bomb types, shapes, sizes, and weights keeps coming up. To the best of my recollection, the standard bombs were demolition and incendiary types. They were mostly of aerodynamic design. Their weights (not counting the "cookies", "blockbusters", "earthquake bombs", "grand slams", etc.) were 250-, 500-, 750-, 1000-, and 2000-pounds. No plane that had just enough room for a single 4000lb bomb in its bomb bay could carry an equivalent load of these other types, no matter how they were packed in. So much for "area bombing" by the Mosquito.

I'm dumfounded by the mention of a Mosquito capable of carrying a 16,000 (!!!!!!!)pound bombload at 430 mph regardless of what kind of engine was used. If a special, oversized bombay had to be designed to accommodate a "mere" 4000lb cookie, where would a 16,000lb bomb be carried? And, with the resulting aerodynamic considerations, what are the chances of such an aircraft flying at 430 mph? If such a proto type actually flew carrying such a load, I'd love to know about it. If it only got to the drawing-board stage, I completely dismiss it as a pipe dream.

I said that there were several interceptor types employed by the Luftwaffe that were very capable of intercepting Mosquitos, but that they were incapable of being significantly deployed because of multiple reasons. This is the reason that all bombers-- day, night, heavy (to inlude Lancasters, B-17s, B-24s, etc,), medium, and light (to include cookie-carrying Mosquitos)-- faced vastly reduced opposition as the war wound down. It was not only the ability of the Mosquito to avoid interception (at which it was, admittedly, very good) but also the fact that there were very few interceptors available to be waiting for them. (And let's not forget the destruction of German RADAR sites and early-warning systems.)

Come on, Guys, I understand your wanting to put forth your favorite airplane in its best light,--After all, I do it with the P-38--but lets not go overboard. I, personally, really like the Mosquito. It is probably my favorite British plane. But if it could really have done all the things attributed to it, to the stellar extent written in these postings, the Allies could have stopped production of all their fighters, their fighter-bombers, their torpedo planes, their dive bombers, their heavy- medium- and light-bombers, their photo-recon planes, their-----, and turned all production over to Mosquitos.

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

quote: In the overall task of destroying the Third Reich, however, it could not replace the heavy bomber.
No, but could it have replaced the B-17...
Which could not even carry anything (internally) bigger than a 2,000lb bomb, IIRC (note - I know it could carry several of these;), my point was that it could not carry a 4,000lb bomb)

quote:
I'm dumfounded by the mention of a Mosquito capable of carrying a 16,000 (!!!!!!!)pound bombload
So am I[:0]. I assumed that it is a typo, and 6,000lb was the intended amount - where is pmjwright to confirm or deny?

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky,

But the Mosquito could not carry "several" 2000 pounders, not even two. I therefore disagree that the Mosquito could have replaced the B-17.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky,

But the Mosquito could not carry "several" 2000 pounders, not even two. I therefore disagree that the Mosquito could have replaced the B-17. Also remember that later models of the B-17 could carry over 15,000 lbs.

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

Ah, but.

2 Mossies could carry slightly more internal bombload than 1 B-17, at less cost in materials and crew, and with enhanced survivability due to their greater speed, with & without bombload.

15,000lb on a B-17 would seem to indicate external loads?

Besides, as originally proposed, any need for true heavy bombers is to be met by the Lanc.

[DoBravery]

It seemed to me that Mossie always enjoyed advantages in speed, range, and surprise.

I would think that if the Mossie had an extreme bombload, its range and speed would greatly suffer. It already had a smaller range than the B-17. There already is a major limitation.

In a full scale raid on a major urban industrial target the Mossie would not have its element of surprise and they'd be weighed down by the cookie. I assume it'd be attacking at a low/med alt. (the whole point is a more accurate single bomb). The low level flak at an urban target would really be murderous.

If you approach the target in a tight formation you don't have a significant defensive armament to cover one another. If you fly loose and evasive, your still slowed by the cookie and now your escorts are spread thinner.

On a slow low/med anticipated approach I think that wood frame and two less engines become a big time liability.

I feel the B-17 strength was in that it could endure extreme punishment on the way to the target, it had to. Regardless of who built/flew them, if a Mossie w/cookie had a German interceptor closing in, I'd think there'd be a good chance that cookie would be gone and that Mossie be diving the hell out of there.

The B-17 fell inline with US thought that a certain degree of losses was ok, but that target better have been hit. Range enabled a wider list of targets.

Granted a few posts ago I argued the strategic capabilities of the P-38. A Mossie easily exceeds the P-38 in the strike role. I just think that all the reasons that we LOVE the Mossie would have been sacraficed had large formations been slowed and short legged by cookies.

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

I would think that if the Mossie had an extreme bombload, its range and speed would greatly suffer. It already had a smaller range than the B-17. There already is a major limitation.
4,000lb is not an extreme bombload for a Mossie, and it is still faster than a B-17 with equivalent load - that is the point.

quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

In a full scale raid on a major urban industrial target the Mossie would not have its element of surprise and they'd be weighed down by the cookie. I assume it'd be attacking at a low/med alt. (the whole point is a more accurate single bomb). The low level flak at an urban target would really be murderous.
No no no!:)
If you have a large formation of Mossies, you can still area bomb. what is the point of precision-bombing an urban sprawl if all you want is a firestorm? The point of having Mosquitoes as the main bomber is that you would lose less because they are that bit faster. No more, no less.

quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

If you approach the target in a tight formation you don't have a significant defensive armament to cover one another. If you fly loose and evasive, your still slowed by the cookie and now your escorts are spread thinner.
And how useful did interlocking defensive fire actually prove in practice?

quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

Granted a few posts ago I argued the strategic capabilities of the P-38. A Mossie easily exceeds the P-38 in the strike role. I just think that all the reasons that we LOVE the Mossie would have been sacraficed had large formations been slowed and short legged by cookies.
No - it would still have been faster, and thereby harder to intercept, and thereby less would be lost...

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

The Mosquito could only carry 2000lb (4 x 500lb) worth of bombs in its bomb bay when not using the single "cookie".

However the early bomber marks also had hard points on the wins on which to carry a further 2 500lb bombs, IIRC. If the plane could carry 4000lb of bombs, surely it would be at least capable of carrying that even if it meant hanging them off the wing?

I believe it was AVRO that designed a bomb rack that could hold 6 500lbers, but was never used. Add 2 500lbers on the wing and that is 4000lbs which was the typical load for a B-17 to Berlin.

Anyone have the bombload configuration for the B-17? How about a range to load graph as well?

DoBravery,

the typical mission profile for the Mossie with a cookie was to climb to over 20,000ft and do a shallow dive to the target. Speed would in the vicinity of 400mph on the run-in.

The Germans had, at times, a hard time intercepting B-17s/B-24s in the not so nice Europian weather. Now imagine 500+ Mosquitos, with escort, attacking at twice the speed spread, over a large area instead of the single heavy bomber stream. They then would converge on their targets.

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky & Kutscha,

I don't believe that two Mosquitos could carry as much as a late-model B-17. When you start using two- or 3-times as many Mosquitos as B-17s, you are ofsetting much of any advantage the Mosquito might have enjoyed. Also, with ever-increasing formation sizes comes increasing command/control and confusion.

You disparaged interlocking fields of defensive fire from the heavies. Granted, it didn't live up to expectations, but it was effective to a degree. It was somewhat of a deterrent, and a not-insignificant number of interceptors were shot down by the gunners The point here is that there would be NO defensive fire coming from a formation of cookie-carrying Mosquitos because they had no armament!
Escorts would be just as necessary but, because of the greater number of unarmed bombers required, would be needed in far greater numbers.

On the way to the target, they would have no defensive fire. Carrying a 4000lb bomb, they would have no maneuverability, and their speed would have to be significantly less than an unloaded Mosquito. On the way home, their only defense would be speed, and if they were being pusued or intercepted by first-line German fighters, they could not outfly them.

The cookie was only good from relatively low altitudes. A tumbling "garbage can" cannot be accurately aimed from high altitude.
If this bomb were to be dropped with any acccuracy at all, the bomb run would have to be made straight-and-level down low. The airspeed of any airplane at low altitude is greatly deminished when compared to its speed at rated altitude. Since the Mosquito Mk B XVI was specified to be 415 mph at altitude without the cookie, I don't believe that it could have made a low-level bomb run at anywhere near 400 mph carrying a 4000lb bomb. Diving from above, maybe, but that speed would be peeled off rapidly as the aircraft leveled-off and established itself as a stabile bombing platform. Dive bombing would be out of the question!

The comment was made that 4000lbs was not an extreme bomb load for a Mosquito. On the contrary, it was--both in weight and in size. The Mk B XVI was redesigned with an oversized, bulged bomb bay. Even if the aircraft could have carried more weight, where woud it be fitted in to the already enlarged fuselage? The effects of hanging external stores has been addressed in an earlier posting above.

The scenario of great formations of 500+ cookie-carrying Mosquitos, with attendant escorts, converging on a distant target from all sides at 400 mph is a fascinating one, but it verges on the edge of fantasy.

Again, the Mosquito was a great plane, but I believe its reputation has been increasingly embellished with the passing years to the point where such grand claims must be questioned.

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

Lightning,

RAF BC had no problem sending large numbers of Lancs and Hallies out at night. They did not fly formation.

The Lancs and Hallies certainly did not drop their cookies from low level.

It is only fantasy of 500+ Mossies because you will not change your your thinking since tactics would have changed using the Mossie. ;) One would have tactics that would be advantagous to the a/c used.

Using greater numbers of Mossies would be an advantage, not a disadvantage, as there would be more a/c for the Germans to attempt to intercept. They would not fly the typical heavy bomber routes but come in from different points of the compass. As mentioned, many LW units failed to intercept the the slow B-17, so imagine the difficulties they would have with an a/c doing 100-200mph more.

Tell me how the Germans were to intercept Mossies in their shallow dive (descending flight), from over Holland, doing 400mph.

Escorts would be staged in the route areas just as the Germans did for their nightfighters.

What was the typical bombload (bomb types and tonnage) of the B-17 to Berlin? Hanging external loads on the B-17 to get it above the 5000lb mark would have slowed it even more than the its typical 180-200mph cruise speed. So even if bombs were hung from the wing of the Mossie it would still be much faster (at least 100mph) than the B-17 using the usually mission profile the Mossie used.

[Ricky]

Ok,

1) who mentioned late-model B-17s? we're starting from scratch here... Though in fairness the 4,000lb Mossie was a fairly late invention. Or would it have been developed sooner if we ditched the B-17...[:p]

2) who mentioned the need for pin-point accuracy? The tactics of both air forces was to bomb the heck out of the entire target area, not just a single point (thouhg they approached it via different means)

3) who mentioned abandoning the idea of escorts? Somebody even proposed putting fighter / fighter-bomber Mossies in the formation to give the Germans an unexpected surprise

4) It is true that faster aircraft are harder to intercept. Losses would have been less, and each loss would have cost the allies less in terms of men & material.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

Ok,

1) who mentioned late-model B-17s? we're starting from scratch here... Though in fairness the 4,000lb Mossie was a fairly late invention. Or would it have been developed sooner if we ditched the B-17...[:p]


Some early bomber models of Mosquito were modified to use "cookies" quite early in the war. As early as 1942 in fact.

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky and Kutscha,

Without accuracy, what good is a big explosion off target?

Twice or thrice the number of bombers (especially unarmed bombers) all spread out requires the same increase in the number of escort fighters. The raids become far bigger for the same bomb tonnage. And where are all these Mosquitos coming from? They were not that easy to mass produce. Also, it took a lot more time to train the Mosquito crews for these missions than it did to train the heavy bomber crews.
Too much for too few for too uncertain results.

The heavily ladden Mosquitos were already flying close to their maximum range. If they started spreading out so as to come in from "all points of the compass", they would have had to fly even farther (as would their escorts). Bigger, heavier external tanks?

If the German air defences didn't get sufficient early warning about such a raid, you're right, it would be very difficult--maybe impossible--to intercept incomming bombers flying at 400mph. It would also be difficult to intercept heavy bombers approaching at 300 mph. But when the heavies were destroying targets deep inside Germany, their formations were reported in good time to allow interception. The same would have been true for the large Mosquito formations you envision had they flown at that stage of the war. (edit--resume at this point) The point here is that the heavies were also having a relatively easy time of it at the time the cookie-carrying Mosquitos were attributing their seeming invulnerability to their speed.

With sufficient warning, the German fighters coud be waiting for the Mosquitos which had to fly 600 miles to reach Berlin. At that point, a Mosquito carrying a 4000lb bomb would be a fast-moving, unmaneuverable target for a faster-moving fighter.

I realize that, when the cookie carrying Mosquitos were hitting Berlin, the German early warning system had been destroyed, but that was an advantage for the heavies as well, and they were also devastating the city.

In comparing the cookie-carrying Mk B XVI Mosquito to the B-17, you have to compare it to the B-17 in use at the same period of the war. At that time, the B-17 had a normal bomb load of 9600lbs which was then increased to 17,600lbs! It could easily carry 5000lbs to a range of 1600 miles--far more than the 1200 mile round trip from London to Berlin. And the Lancaster could carry significantly more! (And, by the way, the B-17 was not a slow airplane. It had a top speed of 300 mph.)

When you take total bomb load and range into full consideration, it is illogical to state that the Mosquito (only a relative few of which could carry the not-all-that-heavy cookie) could have done better at strategic bombing than the heavy bomber.

And, as a very good indicator that this was not the case, why didn't the RAF go over to using the Mosquito as its conventional heavy bomber replacement, either during or after WWII?

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

The problem here is that Kutscha & I are actually arguing different things...:)

I propose simply using Mossies as B-17s in a more-or-les straight swap.
Formation flying, area bombing, etc etc.

Interception - heck, the Luftwaffe could set up an interception if they came in at 600mph, the point is (and this has been discussed before):
1) it is trickier to actually intercept faster planes on the firing pass - although we can mostly discount this owing to experienced Luftwaffe pilots and the size of the formations.
2) the key is that it then becomes that much harder, and takes that much longer, for fighters to regroup and overtake the formation for a second pass. with a 280mph bomber vs 400mph fighter - easy. With a 380mph bomber vs 400mph fighter - not so easy.
Heck, RAF studies showed that the Halifax III with streamlined nose (which was faster and less well-armed defensively than the Halifax II) had a better survival rate than the Halifax II...:)

Why does it take longer to train a Mossie crew to fly to Berlin and back?

As to mass-production... this is an ongoing mystery, as many people maintain that the sections were churned out in concrete moulds, and could fairly easily have been mass-produced.

The point about formation size is well taken, but then a lot depends on the formation type. As the formation will not need to be arranged to take advantage of interlocking defensive fire, it can be much more compact than the B-17 'boxes'.

[Kutscha]

Lightning,

they did not call the cookie the block buster for no reason.;)

Besides the B-29, what American bomber could fly 300mph with a full load?

You are still thinking 'heavy bombers'. If the Mossie became the major a/c, as this 'what if' proposes, then they would have been mass produced in the USA. (the US did look at manufacturing them) Over 5000 were produced in the UK and Canada. How many F4Us were built before the war ended? Part of the reason the Mossie used wood was because there was an untapped work force very capable of working with wood and not just in the UK and Canada. It is not like today where many people don't have clue about working with wood.

As to training, yes the Pathfinder Mossie crews had better training but not your regular bomber crews.

Mosquitos had no trouble reaching Berlin. By 'all over the compass' I mean spread across say a 150mi front. That would add negligable distance to the radius of action. If they did run low on fuel, they could land in France as did many escort fighters after June 44. The heavies flew a narrow width route. The Germans would have to spread their defences out to cover that spread thus diluting the number of a/c for interception and making it easier for the escorts. You forget about the 'shuttle' mission flown for the heavy bombers by escort fighters. Remember Spits and P-47s did the 'escorting' for the short to medium distances with P-38s and P-51s used for the longer distances. I see no problem in having enough escort support for a wide front mission. A wide front would also not give any indication as to the intended target until very late in the mission.

Though not perfect but compare a passing attack with players spread out across the field to a running attack with the players generally close together as in a goal line stand in football. Which gives the most gain?

[pmjwright]

quote:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm dumfounded by the mention of a Mosquito capable of carrying a 16,000 (!!!!!!!)pound bombload
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So am I. I assumed that it is a typo, and 6,000lb was the intended amount - where is pmjwright to confirm or deny?
Hi again. The Sabre Mosquito was a conceptual idea for a scaled-up heavy bomber derivative based somewhat on the Mosquito design, powered by 2 Napier Sabre engines. But of course, no longer a true "Mosquito".

Not a typo--"The DH.101 was to carry a 7,260 kilogram (16,000 pound) bomb load to Berlin at a top speed of 692 KPH (430 MPH)." See http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmoss3.html. Remarkable specs, and as it turned out, unachievable.

Anyway, it was just a "what if" musing of mine--but it is consistent with the "what if" topic of this thread. Certainly raised your eyebrows!! But, imagine if it had succeeded--the entire heavy bomber force would have been obsolete (maybe even the B-29?). The Luftwaffe interceptor force may have been outmatched, certainly their night-fighters. Huge pressure to counter that threat with something new and improved--more urgency to jet fighter development. Etc.

PS By "obsolete", I certainly don't mean "ineffective". We all know what the heavy bombers accomplished.

[pmjwright]

quote:If the Mossie became the major a/c, as this 'what if' proposes, then they would have been mass produced in the USA. (the US did look at manufacturing them)
If this thread's scenario came to pass, if the Mossie became the major a/c and proved the success of the concept, it would have sparked US a/c manufacturers to come up with new equivalent designs. After all, most nations preferred and/or relied heavily on their domestic designs, and the purchase of aircraft from other nations was relatively minor in both numbers and varieties.

And I have a suspicion that Kelly Johnson could have come up with some ideas for a "Super Lightning"--a "B-38" so to speak!

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by pmjwright

Not a typo--"The DH.101 was to carry a 7,260 kilogram (16,000 pound) bomb load to Berlin at a top speed of 692 KPH (430 MPH)." See http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmoss3.html. Remarkable specs, and as it turned out, unachievable.




Tony Butler's 'British Secret Projects, fighters and bombers 1935 - 1950 has this as '4,000lb internally (though not the single 4,000lb er) together with another 2,000lb under the wings. The book also quotes the speed being the same - 430mph.

Although the plane was bigger (with a third crewman) I suspect Greg Goebel has a typo in his write up - 16,000lb instead of 6,000lb.

[pmjwright]

OK I would go with the more reliable reference...aah, it was a good dream!

[Mark J]

A 'Super Lightning"

They had one, the XP-58 'chain lightning'

Plagued by engine problems and to many redesigns but the idea was there.

cheers

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by pmjwright

OK I would go with the more reliable reference...aah, it was a good dream!


I suspect the Air Staff would have sold their souls to get a bomber capable of carrying 16,000lb at 420mph.

:)

I had seen that site before and read the article but had missed that typo until now.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

The heavily ladden Mosquitos were already flying close to their maximum range. If they started spreading out so as to come in from "all points of the compass", they would have had to fly even farther (as would their escorts). Bigger, heavier external tanks?


Bomber Mosquitos had a range of about 2000 miles.


quote:Originally posted by Lightning

If the German air defences didn't get sufficient early warning about such a raid, you're right, it would be very difficult--maybe impossible--to intercept incomming bombers flying at 400mph. It would also be difficult to intercept heavy bombers approaching at 300 mph. But when the heavies were destroying targets deep inside Germany, their formations were reported in good time to allow interception. The same would have been true for the large Mosquito formations you envision had they flown at that stage of the war. (edit--resume at this point) The point here is that the heavies were also having a relatively easy time of it at the time the cookie-carrying Mosquitos were attributing their seeming invulnerability to their speed.

One of the methods of detection was, obviously radar. Because of its wooden construction and more compact size the Mosquito would be more difficult to pick up on radar. Especially if they flew in sparser formations.

The B17Gs flew in formations that required speeds between 165 and 180mph. This was also their cruise speed. Max speed for a laden B17G was in the low 200mph range, IIRC, whilst top speed was getting towards 320mph!

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

I realize that, when the cookie carrying Mosquitos were hitting Berlin, the German early warning system had been destroyed, but that was an advantage for the heavies as well, and they were also devastating the city.

In comparing the cookie-carrying Mk B XVI Mosquito to the B-17, you have to compare it to the B-17 in use at the same period of the war. At that time, the B-17 had a normal bomb load of 9600lbs which was then increased to 17,600lbs! It could easily carry 5000lbs to a range of 1600 miles--far more than the 1200 mile round trip from London to Berlin. And the Lancaster could carry significantly more! (And, by the way, the B-17 was not a slow airplane. It had a top speed of 300 mph.)


I have checked a few sources today. They vary a little, but a few agree that the maximum internal bomb load for a B17G was around 6000lb. This is not to say that the plane couldn't carry more bombs. The sources also suggest that the "normal" load for a B17G was closer to 4000lb.

Maybe when the aerial defences were all but gone the B17Gs could afford to use higher bomb loads, as they had less to fear.

Now, the first "cookie carrying" Mosquito was a converted B Mk IV. That is the 4th variation of the Mosquito , after the photo reconnasnce, fighetr and night fighter variations. I'm not exactly sure when that happened, but B Mk IVs became operational in early 1942 - a few months prior to B17Es and Fs arriving in England, and long before any fighters were capable of escorting them to Berlin.

A B Mk IV was the first Allied bomber to bomb Berlin in the daylight, in March of 1943.

The bulged bomb bays required to fit the 4000lb bomb was retrofitted in the field to a number of the bomber versions, but it was made standard in later versions - probably the oft quoted B Mk XVI.

Lightning is right in that production of Mosquitos ramped up slowly. And bomber variants suffered the most. This is largely to do with priorities, however. If the will existed to make the Mosquito bomber a key strategic bomber then I'm sure its production rates would have ramped up much more quickly.


btw, a B25 Mitchell could carry 4000lbs of bombs internally, had defensive armaments, but had a cruise speed of mid 200mph range.

[Kutscha]

Wuzak,

On Jan 30 (or 31??) 1943 Mossies from #105 (6) and #139 (3) bombed Berlin in daylight. This interupted speachs by Goering and Goebbels, who were not pleased. It so enraged Herr Meyer that he had 2 special JGs formed, 25 and 50. They had little, if any success, against the Mossies and were disbanded several months later.

Some BIXs also got the bulged bomb bay.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak
Max speed for a laden B17G was in the low 200mph range,


Is that a European or African B17G??



:D[8D]

[Wuzak]

:D

It must have been the African B17G, because it would need two European B17Gs working together to carry the bombs![:p]

[Wuzak]

Further reading reveals that the first conversion of a Mosquito to carry the 4000lb bomb was conducted in April 1943, as a devlopment example. B Mk IXs were also converted, and the first raids with these bombs were taken in early 1944. Mosquitos tended to either be for marking targets (Pathfinder squadron) or for making diversionary bomb raids. It was thought that the 4000lb bomb would make the Mosquito raids more like a genuine raid.

Through 1941/2 the majority of Mosquitos were Night Fighter variants and Photo Reconnaisance variants.

But since it was a B Mk IV that was converted to use a 4000lb bomb it was possible in early '42.

Also, speed wasn't the only defence of bomber Mosquitos. Altitude combined with the speed to make them difficult to intercept.

Also, B17s could operate at very high altitudes, but for different reasons it wasn't practical to. Had they been able to in 1943 they would have suffered much less loss from enemy action!

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

:D

It must have been the African B17G, because it would need two European B17Gs working together to carry the bombs![:p]


Yeah, under the dorsal guiding fins. They could carry it together on a line....

[Lightning]

Quick replies to Kutscha and Wuzak:

Kutscha:
* The "cookie" was not the "block Buster" That bomb was the 8000 pounder.
* The reason wood was used was because it was considered non-strategic.
Much of the woodworking on the Mosquito was by hand and was very labor-intensive. Repair of damage on the heavy bombers was also easier and quicker.
* The B XVI Mosquito bomber crews did, in fact, require a higher degree of training. They (a two-man crew) were, for the most part, on their own as far as night navigation, target aquisition, management of electronics, bomb aiming, etc. were concerned. Their selection and training were to much higher standards and took substantially longer than that of heavy-bomber crews.
* As you know, the closer you get to the goal line, the harder the yards come.


Wuzak:
* The earlier cookie-carrying Mosquitos were hard to handle and were tail heavy. They also had less-powerful engines and were slower than the Mk XVI. I also believe they had less range. In comparison, they were not all that successful.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi all,

The thread is becoming a "could a, should a, would a" discussion. The following reasons are why I do not think that the Mosquito could have replaced the heavy bombers:

The Mosquito Mk B XVI had a maximum range of 1370 mi. (The round-trip distance to Berlin was 1200 mi.) Its maximum bomb load was a single 4000 lb, thin-case, blast bomb (the "cookie") that had no fins or aerodynamic features conducive to accuracy. (Think WWII "napalm" ballistics). It also had no penetration to speak of.

Let's compare that to the Lancaster. The "Lanc" could carry the following bombs singly or in combination: the 4000 lb "cookie"; the 8000 lb "Blockbuster"; the 12,000 lb thin-case blast bomb;
the 9250 lb spinning "Dambuster"; the 12,030 lb "Tall boy"; the 22,000 lb "Grand Slam". It could also carry an impressive load of incendiaries.

The "earthquake bombs" (i.e. the Tall Boy and Grand Slam),
were streamlined, deep penetration bombs that were used to destroy "hard" targets like tunnels, V-weapon storage and launch sites, submarine pens, underground concrete-reinforced bunkers,etc. They were dropped accurately from high altitude and attained very high velocity in the fall.

The Lanc had a range of 1730 mi carrying a 12,000 lb bomb load. It could carry a mixed load of 14,000 lb over 1500 mi.

Now let's look at the late-model B-17G: Its normal range was 2000 mi carrying a 6000 lb bomb load. This could be increased to 3200 mi using "Tokyo Tanks".
Its maximum bomb load (although at reduced range) was 6 x 1600 pounders plus 2 x 8000 pounders for a total load of 17,600 lbs. Again,
these could be mixed to suit the mission.

Much has been made here of the 4000 lb "cookie". In reality, it was not all that destructive when compared to the bombs carried by the heavies. And, remember, the ultimate Mosquito bomber (the B XVI) only carried one of them. In fact, Bomber Command itself referred to the Mosquito bombing raids on Berlin as "nuisance" and "harassment" raids designed to tie up air defenses.

When you look at photos of Frankfurt, Hamburg, Berlin, and other destroyed cities in Germany, it is obvious that Mosquitos carrying one 4000 lb cookie per sortie coud not have wrought such destruction. That was done by the heavy bombers.

Regards,
Lightning

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

When you look at photos of Frankfurt, Hamburg, Berlin, and other destroyed cities in Germany, it is obvious that Mosquitos carrying one 4000 lb cookie per sortie coud not have wrought such destruction.

Yes they certainly could have, if enough of them had attacked often enough. As we know, you could afford two or three Mossies for the price of a Lanc, and they could travel to Berlin twice in one night.

There is an interesting late-war study carried out by the RAF in the PRO files (reference AIR 2/5487, minutes of meeting held 20 April 1944 to consider future bomber needs). This was called to discuss potential super-heavy bombers, but the discussion included much questioning of the need for such planes. A mathematical proof was included of the superior efficiency of a large number of small bombers rather than a small number of big ones (unfortunately, this was before the days when digital cameras were allowed and I didn't have the patience to copy it all). However, from memory it compared the construction cost, bomb loads and survival chances of big and small bombers and demonstrated that the small, fast unarmed bomber (read: Mosquito) was a more efficient bomb delivery system than the big slow one (read: Lancaster).

Yes, the Lanc could carry the super-heavy bombs, but frankly such attacks were more effective at hitting the headlines than they were at shortening the war.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Tony Williams

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

When you look at photos of Frankfurt, Hamburg, Berlin, and other destroyed cities in Germany, it is obvious that Mosquitos carrying one 4000 lb cookie per sortie coud not have wrought such destruction.

Yes they certainly could have, if enough of them had attacked often enough. As we know, you could afford two or three Mossies for the price of a Lanc, and they could travel to Berlin twice in one night.

There is an interesting late-war study carried out by the RAF in the PRO files (reference AIR 2/5487, minutes of meeting held 20 April 1944 to consider future bomber needs). This was called to discuss potential super-heavy bombers, but the discussion included much questioning of the need for such planes. A mathematical proof was included of the superior efficiency of a large number of small bombers rather than a small number of big ones (unfortunately, this was before the days when digital cameras were allowed and I didn't have the patience to copy it all). However, from memory it compared the construction cost, bomb loads and survival chances of big and small bombers and demonstrated that the small, fast unarmed bomber (read: Mosquito) was a more efficient bomb delivery system than the big slow one (read: Lancaster).

Yes, the Lanc could carry the super-heavy bombs, but frankly such attacks were more effective at hitting the headlines than they were at shortening the war.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk



Think i saw part of that in a book on RAF Bombers a while back and i've been trying to remember the book's name ever since.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by PMN1

[quote]Originally posted by Tony Williams
Think i saw part of that in a book on RAF Bombers a while back and i've been trying to remember the book's name ever since.


The analysis would have been done by the Operations Research team. It may be easiest to track the original account. Thirty years ago I read OR analyses of the bombing program/bomber mix (my old Physics Dept had a shelf of these things, newsprint, HMSO (now PRO) ephemeral binding and construction).

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning


Kutscha:
* The "cookie" was not the "block Buster" That bomb was the 8000 pounder.

An 8000lber was just 2 4000lb cookie blockbusters.

* The reason wood was used was because it was considered non-strategic.

True.

Much of the woodworking on the Mosquito was by hand and was very labor-intensive. Repair of damage on the heavy bombers was also easier and quicker.

Disagree, from experience repairing plywood race boats.

* The B XVI Mosquito bomber crews did, in fact, require a higher degree of training. They (a two-man crew) were, for the most part, on their own as far as night navigation, target aquisition, management of electronics, bomb aiming, etc. were concerned. Their selection and training were to much higher standards and took substantially longer than that of heavy-bomber crews.

Only the Path Finder crews. A family friend was a Mossie erk who then trained as a Mossie pilot. I once asked him, because of what you say, and he replied that he had normal pilot training. The other crew member would have to learn 2 trades but Oboe made life easier for them.

* As you know, the closer you get to the goal line, the harder the yards come.

That then is a tactical scenario.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

* The B XVI Mosquito bomber crews did, in fact, require a higher degree of training. They (a two-man crew) were, for the most part, on their own as far as night navigation, target aquisition, management of electronics, bomb aiming, etc. were concerned. Their selection and training were to much higher standards and took substantially longer than that of heavy-bomber crews.
[/blue]



B17 squadrons would often use a tactic where the most highy trained/experienced crews would be the ones to line up the target, with all the rest dropping their bombs on the lead bomber's cue.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning


* The earlier cookie-carrying Mosquitos were hard to handle and were tail heavy. They also had less-powerful engines and were slower than the Mk XVI. I also believe they had less range. In comparison, they were not all that successful.


As I understand it, all Mosquitos were more tail heavy when using the "cookie".

The Mk IV bombers did indeed have less powerful engines than the MkXVI. But more powerful engines were available at that time, BUT priorities meant that those more powerful Merlin variants went to Spitfire IXs, Lancasters, PR and NF versions of the Mosquito.

Had the powers that be thought that the Mosquito bomber operations were higher priority there is no doubt that the more powerful engines would have been forthcoming. And the development $$$ would also be redirected.

[Wuzak]

btw, in reading about the Mosquito in The Great Book of WW2 Aircraft , mention was made of the "Sabre Mosquito", and that the projected performance was 16000lb bomb load with 430mph top speed!

Also mentioned was that after WW2 Britain never again bothered fitting (new types) defensive weapons on their bombers!

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

btw, in reading about the Mosquito in The Great Book of WW2 Aircraft , mention was made of the "Sabre Mosquito", and that the projected performance was 16000lb bomb load with 430mph top speed!

I think that's been identified elsewhere as a misprint for 6,000 lb.

quote:Also mentioned was that after WW2 Britain never again bothered fitting (new types) defensive weapons on their bombers!


True of postwar designs. The successor to the Mossie was the English Electric Lightning, a phenomenal performer which was still in service until recently. It was also built in the USA as the Martin B-57.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Wuzak]

quote:There were a number of proposals for Mosquito derivatives. In November 1941, DH proposed the "DH.99", later redesignated the "DH.101", fast heavy bomber to the Air Ministry. The DH.101 was apparently something like a scaled-up Mosquito that was to be powered by twin Napier Sabre 24-cylinder inline engines, used on the Hawker Typhoon, driving contrarotating propellers. It was informally referred to as the "Sabre Mosquito".

The DH.101 was to carry a 7,260 kilogram (16,000 pound) bomb load to Berlin at a top speed of 692 KPH (430 MPH). However, the Sabre development program was troubled and DH was told they would have to make do with the Griffon, Rolls-Royce's next-generation successor to the Merlin. The result did not have clear advantages over the existing Mosquito, and the idea was dropped in April 1942.

The Air Ministry then tossed around the notion of an improved "DH.102 Mosquito II" with two-stage Merlins, but de Havilland couldn't come up with a design concept that was particularly exciting, and that line of investigation was dropped in turn at the end of 1942.



http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmoss3.html#m4

Another source.

Wonder what could have been done with Griffons, since these were basically designed to fit in the space of a Merlin, or very nearly!

[Red Admiral]

E.E. Lightning? Don't you mean Canberra?

[Ricky]

I'm going to re-post the original proposal, as we seem to have lost sight of it...

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

Ok, this has been touched on a bit in one of the strands, but here goes...

I propose that it would have made far more sense to equip the American heavy bomber squadrons in the ETO with British bombers (mainly Lancs, backed up by Mosquitos, with possibly Halifaxs too).
Why?
Well, considering that the heavier defensive armament on the B-17 & B-24 made very little difference to their vulnerability to fighters, then surely you could just as well use a bomber with lighter defences (say, oh, 8x.303 machine guns...) but a larger and more versatile carrying capacity (those lovely, long, unobstructed bomb bays).
Obviously, nothing else about the bombing missions would change - escorts of P-47s and P-51s, specially modified lead Bombardiers with Norden bombsights, etc etc.
For raids against industry, where heavier bombs are needed, use the Lanc / Halifax combination
For raids against 'softer' targets (railway marshalling yards, etc) use Mosquitos as 'Schnell-bombers'.

Now, I should point out here that I am not trying to champion British-built over American-built (even though I am English;)). And I'd rather this did not take that direction.
I just thought a nice controversial question might be fun.

So, what does anyone reckon?

Please note - Heavy bombers are included.
Please also note - not intended as a nationalistic parade.

And yes, Tony must have meant the Canberra - which AFAIK are still in sevice. They certainly where when I was at Uni (3 years ago), as I saw them flying around.

[PMN1]

I'm very dubious about the 16,000lb on two Sabres.....

.....the Manchester couldn't handle 8,000lb on two Vultures of roughly the same power give or take a few hundred HP(when they worked).

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by PMN1

I'm very dubious about the 16,000lb on two Sabres.....

.....the Manchester couldn't handle 8,000lb on two Vultures of roughly the same power give or take a few hundred HP(when they worked).

PMN1, don't you know that the Mossie & her descendants could perfom miracles!:D

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Now let's look at the late-model B-17G: Its normal range was 2000 mi carrying a 6000 lb bomb load. This could be increased to 3200 mi using "Tokyo Tanks".
Its maximum bomb load (although at reduced range) was 6 x 1600 pounders plus 2 x 8000 pounders for a total load of 17,600 lbs. Again,
these could be mixed to suit the mission.

If the -17 had such great range with 6000lb, then why was this the average load or slightly less to Berlin. For arguement sake, it should have been able to carry 10,000lb to Berlin.

Remember those range stats are for a single a/c, not for a formation forming up and then flying in the boxes to the target. What climb rate was used in the ETO? It would not be some leasurely one as would have been done in the States to obtain those range numbers.

Zeno's has some range graphs for the -17 with 6000lb of bombs. The best range @ 25,000ft was just under 3200mi with 2812 gal. So radius is ~1500mi. Now in the calculation for this range, no allowance was made for warm-up, take-off, climb, descent and headwinds. At 5000ft, the absolute range was just under 3400mi.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/B-17/17TRC.gif

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/main.html

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky
And yes, Tony must have meant the Canberra - which AFAIK are still in sevice. They certainly where when I was at Uni (3 years ago), as I saw them flying around.


Ooops, yes of course. My years are catching up with me...

TW

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha
If the -17 had such great range with 6000lb, then why was this the average load or slightly less to Berlin. For arguement sake, it should have been able to carry 10,000lb to Berlin.

Remember those range stats are for a single a/c, not for a formation forming up and then flying in the boxes to the target. What climb rate was used in the ETO? It would not be some leasurely one as would have been done in the States to obtain those range numbers.


Exactly so. The B-17s expended a significant part of their fuel load just in getting into formation - and in staying there. The night bombers had no such problems.

TW

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

I'm going to re-post the original proposal, as we seem to have lost sight of it...

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

Ok, this has been touched on a bit in one of the strands, but here goes...

I propose that it would have made far more sense to equip the American heavy bomber squadrons in the ETO with British bombers (mainly Lancs, backed up by Mosquitos, with possibly Halifaxs too).
Why?
Well, considering that the heavier defensive armament on the B-17 & B-24 made very little difference to their vulnerability to fighters, then surely you could just as well use a bomber with lighter defences (say, oh, 8x.303 machine guns...) but a larger and more versatile carrying capacity (those lovely, long, unobstructed bomb bays).
Obviously, nothing else about the bombing missions would change - escorts of P-47s and P-51s, specially modified lead Bombardiers with Norden bombsights, etc etc.
For raids against industry, where heavier bombs are needed, use the Lanc / Halifax combination
For raids against 'softer' targets (railway marshalling yards, etc) use Mosquitos as 'Schnell-bombers'.

Now, I should point out here that I am not trying to champion British-built over American-built (even though I am English;)). And I'd rather this did not take that direction.
I just thought a nice controversial question might be fun.

So, what does anyone reckon?

Please note - Heavy bombers are included.
Please also note - not intended as a nationalistic parade.

And yes, Tony must have meant the Canberra - which AFAIK are still in sevice. They certainly where when I was at Uni (3 years ago), as I saw them flying around.


I thought that we had been through that and had come up with an alternative hypothesis:

Continue to use Lancs and Halifaxes for night raids, and use Mosquitos to take 4000lbs of bomb(s) to Germany in place of the B17s.

Which is quite an interesting discussion, from both perspectives.

btw, since the B17 had been the USAAF's glamour bomber since the mid-'30s, and had much money spent on promoting it and its strategic bombing role, it is doubtful it would have been replaced by a heavy bomber designed and built elsewhere.

Back to Mossie vs B17. Would it have been possible that Mosquitos carrying the standard 2000lb bomb load could have done the same damage as B17s.

Lets take the example of a 300 bomber raid. In the case of the B17s, the raid would be made in 2 or 3 waves of large formations of aircraft. The raid would take (at the target area) a few hours, I would have thought. If that.

In teh case of teh Mosquitos, the 300 could be divided up in smaller numbers - say 30. Striking at regular intervals, the first wave would return and rearm and a replacement crew put on board. They would then go back to the target, hopefully the timing could be such that the interval between their raid and the last of the original raids.

During the day the same bomb tonnage could be dropped (B17s, on average, only dropped 4000lbs of bombs per bomber during the war).

Then the night offensive could begin!

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

I thought that we had been through that and had come up with an alternative hypothesis
Well, yeah, but I was just pointing out that heavies were included still.

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

btw, since the B17 had been the USAAF's glamour bomber since the mid-'30s, and had much money spent on promoting it and its strategic bombing role, it is doubtful it would have been replaced by a heavy bomber designed and built elsewhere.
True...
although, being as it was originally an anti-shipping patrol bomber, why not refine that and use it as an ASW aircraft. After all, it has a decent range (especially if it only has a few depth charges as bombload) and a large crew (lots of eyes to spot the subs).
And I'm sure it could be a bomber in the Pacific (as Mossies tended to come unglued in humidity...[:p])

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Your quote:

"If the -17 had such great range with 6000lb, then why was this the average load or slightly less to Berlin. For arguement sake, it should have been able to carry 10,000lb to Berlin.

Remember those range stats are for a single a/c, not for a formation forming up and then flying in the boxes to the target. What climb rate was used in the ETO? It would not be some leasurely one as would have been done in the States to obtain those range numbers.

Zeno's has some range graphs for the -17 with 6000lb of bombs. The best range @ 25,000ft was just under 3200mi with 2812 gal. So radius is ~1500mi. Now in the calculation for this range, no allowance was made for warm-up, take-off, climb, descent and headwinds. At 5000ft, the absolute range was just under 3400mi."


Since the one-way distance to Berlin was about 600 miles, even a range of only 1200 miles would be enough. With a 6000lb bomb load, the B-17 had more than this at the altitudes and airspeeds, shown on your graphs. Are you saying that take-off, climb, and forming up would decrease the range from 3200 miles to less than 1200 miles?

Am I missing something, or am I misinterpreting your comments and graphs?

And remember, if we are going to make a direct comparison between the B-17 and the mosquito Mk B XVI, we have to assume that the Mosquito would be flying daylight raids. This would have changed things considerably (day fighters vs night fighters, for one example). If daylight raids were no harder to perform than night raids, the RAF would never changed over in the first place.

Regards,
Lightning

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning
And remember, if we are going to make a direct comparison between the B-17 and the mosquito Mk B XVI, we have to assume that the Mosquito would be flying daylight raids. This would have changed things considerably (day fighters vs night fighters, for one example). If daylight raids were no harder to perform than night raids, the RAF would never changed over in the first place.


Of course, daylight raids would have been considerably more dangerous for any planes. However, the Mossie would still have been far harder to intercept than a B-17, simply because its speed would have drastically reduced the interception window - the defending interceptors would have to be in the right place at the right time, otherwise they'd never catch it. And with escort fighters along with the Mossies, the interceptors' task would become extremely difficult.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

As to repair and maintenance of the plywood Mosquito vs the metal Lancaster, it is much simpler to do the required sheetmetal work than to work with sections of plywood. Dope-and-fabric work, if required, was even easier. Welding of structural joints is much quicker than gluing, with its long curing time and its attendant jigging and clamping.

Also consider the above mentioned glue problems in warm, wet conditions. To replace the Lancaster, the Mosquito would have had to perform its feats of magic in many unfavorable climes--not just in Northern Europe.

The Lancaster had a simple structure. It was easy to produce. The workforce was easily trained and did not require many special skills. The tooling was uncomplicated and relatively cheap. These were not the case with the Mosquito. The Lancaster also made use of quick-engine-change modules. These greatly reduced the time to replace battle-damaged engines.

The Mosquito bomber crews that made the night raids on Berlin were certainly trained to a higher standard than regular heavy-bomber crews. Every pertinent reference I have ever read on the subject states that the Light Night Stiking Force (LNSF) were elite crews with more, and specialized, training to higher standards. This most certainly not only pertain to the "pathfinder" crews.

Consider the following: A Lancaster crew (not counting gunners) had a pilot, a flight engineer, a navigator, a radio operator, and a bomb aimer. A Mosquito crew had a pilot and copilot; these two men had to perform the same aforementioned tasks, and do them in a high-performance airplane. It is obvious which crew had more individual expertise.

You said that the "Blockbuster" was merely two 4000lb "Cookies". I have never heard this, but, either way, it is immaterial to the discussion. No matter how you look at it, the Mosquito could never have carried one.

I think Ricky has the best overall assessment of the situation when he says that the best scenario is with the heavy bombers and the Mosquitos working together--something I have said from the start.

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

Lightning,

The RAF switched to night bombing because the slow 'heavy' bombers could not survive during the day, unescorted, of which there was none of in 1941-42. They did not switch back later when long range escorts became available because the USAAF was looking after the day bombing > round the clock bombing of Nazi Germany.

You forget how much fuel is consumed in formation flying and going to altitude with a heavyly laden bomber. You also forget that those range graphs were for [u]perfect and optimum conditions</u>. Strong head winds in the ETO were a fact of life and would require more throttle to overcome (sometimes even full throttle). It also states the numbers are calculated. So yes, I think you missed the point I was attempting to make.

If range was no problem to Berlin then why did the bomb load carried by the B-17 not increase? Could it be that this was the norm because of the fuel required to be carried to reach Berlin? Can you suggest another reason why this did not happen? What was the bombload to targets further than Berlin?

There is still the problem of LW interception of great numbers of escorted Mossies, cruising ~150mph faster than the slow B-17 in their concentrated formation, over a wide front, at multiple altitudes, at various times and in numerous smaller formations. The German knew where to find the B-17s. Speed is life, as they said. Sure some would get shot down but not in the numbers I think you are thinking of.

[Lightning]

Quote fom T. Williams; "
Yes they certainly could have, if enough of them had attacked often enough. As we know, you could afford two or three Mossies"

Any bomb-carrying airplane can make this claim. It all depends on what constitutes a great-enough number and on how "often enough" is defined.

Re: Two trips to Berlin in one night. This was done, but it was not nearly the norm at any time of the year. It was only really possible on the very long winter nights in Northern Europe. During the late spring, the summer, and the early fall nights, there just was not enough darkness for this to occur regularly, if at all.

Also, two trips in one night required two crews and eight hours of flying time (not to mention rearming, refueling, etc.) to deliver 8000lbs of bombs to two impact sites. Hardly "pattern" bombing.

The "Tall Boy"/ "Grand Slam" attacks were not until later in the war. The Mosquito attacks on Berlin also did not shorten the war by that much. As pointed out earlier, they were, in the end, "nuisance raids"

The "Cookies" could not begin to knock out hard targets like sub pens, underground reinforced-concrete bunkers, V-weapon sites, etc. The "Tall Boy" raids, on the other hand, destroyed these targets and forced the V-weapons out of their bunkers to be exposed in mobile launching sites.

As to the post-war period,
the heavy bomber did not give way to the fast light bomber, the late-war study to which you refer notwithstanding. The U.S. produced the B-36, the B-47, the B-50, the B-52, the B-1, and the B-2. Other designs that didn't go into production were the XB-35, XB-49, YB-60, and the XB-70.

The U.K. produced the "Shackelton", the "Vulcan", the "Valiant", and the "Victor". That the last two were not very successful is of no consequence here. The point is that they were sought after, accepted, and produced.

The argument that these post-war heavies were only accepted because they were "A-Bombers" does not tell the whole story. These planes were built to deliver both nuclear and conventional bombs. Smaller bombers were also built with nuclear and conventional capability, but they never replaced the heavies.

The B-52 delivered tremendous bomb tonnage in Viet Nam., It did it again just recently in the Gulf War. Light, fast bombers did not replace them.

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

I Read Your reply with interest. The points you put forth are good ones, but they just contain to much conjecture and questions posed but not answered.

The actual ranges, fuel consumptions, speeds, and bomb loads to be found in tables, graphs, specifications, etc. do not imply, in any way, that the B-17 could not make it to Berlin with a 6000lb-plus bomb load. Special scenarios can always be developed to prove a point, but the scenarios encountered in the vast majority of cases are more meaningful.

There is no doubt that the heavy-bomber raids on the enemy did far greater damage to his ability and will to wage the war than did the Mosquito bomber raids. Those who disagree can rationalize and war-game all they want to, but the facts are there for all to see. I respect your oppinions and your ability to put them forth, but I stand by the foregoing statement.

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

I'll not need to make much more comment;), but I will say a couple of things:

1) We cannot really assess the impact of large-scale bombing via Mossie by comparison to the bombing via Mossie that actually happened.
It is like saying that the upgraded Super-Pershing tank would have had no impact on WW2 because in practice it had little impact upon the battlefield (only 3 tanks were trialed, and only one ever shot at anything - with inconclusve results - although they were deployed in the front line of the ETO for several months).

2) As far as I recall, the blockbuster was simply 2 cookies bolted together (although it also seems that the 2 names were interchangable, and they were distinguished by size) - but that is immaterial to a discussion on the Mossie vs B-17 as only the Lanc or Hallifax could fit that into their bomb bay.[:p]

3) As to our 'V'-bombers...
Well, the Valiant was always a fail-safe in case the other 2 failed (and by definition mediocre in comparison), the Victor was actually a bloomin' good plane, with some advanced features (ever checked out the wing on that beauty?) but for some reason was moved into tanking duties, and lost the limelight to the glamourpuss (and brilliant) Vulcan.

Only the USA, UK and USSR produced heavy bombers after the war, as only they could afford them;)
And note that Britain gave up on them, and the USSR converted most of hers to maritime recon.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky



2) As far as I recall, the blockbuster was simply 2 cookies bolted together (although it also seems that the 2 names were interchangable, and they were distinguished by size) - but that is immaterial to a discussion on the Mossie vs B-17 as only the Lanc or Hallifax could fit that into their bomb bay.[:p]




If the 4,000lb is a Cookie and the 8,000lb a Blockbuster, what does that make the 12,000lb (3 cookies joined together)??



:)

[Tony Williams]

A few comments, using info from 'Bombs Gone', the standard work on British bombs and bombing:

The 8,000 lb HC bomb (known as the 'Super Cookie') did consist of two 4,000 lb elements bolted together, but these were not Cookies: the diameter of the 4,000 lb Cookie was 30 inches, the Super Cookie 38". The 12,000 lb HC consisted of three 38" diam elements.

The bigger bombs were uncommon. Only 193 12,000 lb HC were dropped, and 1,088 8,000 lb 'Super Cookies', compared with 68,000 Cookies, which became the RAF's standard blast bomb for area attacks. (Incidentally, of the two 'earthquake' MC bombs, 854 12,000 lb 'Tallboy' and just 41 22,000 lb 'Grand Slam' were dropped).

The 'round trip' to Berlin was usually far longer than the direct route, as the bomber streams took all kinds of diversionary routes to fool the defences as to their target.

It took a Lancaster four hours to reach Berlin, carrying an 8,800 lb bombload and flying at less than 20,000 feet. It took a Mosquito with a 4,000 lb bomb two hours, flying at 27,000 feet.

Mosquitos were used for far more than just 'nuisance' or diversionary raids. Between 1 Jan and 21 April 1945 they dropped about 1,500 'Cookies' on Berlin, during which they attacked on 36 consecutive nights. During this period they dropped 1,572 on other targets (amounting to over 3,000 sorties) for a total loss of 26 aircraft, a loss rate of less than 1%. In the 1944 'Battle of Berlin', losses of the heavies rose to over 10%.

Incidentally, the Mossie also carried an incendiary bomb as an alternative to the Cookie; it consisted of 2,700 lb of incendiary material in a Cookie case.

It is clear that the use of the Mosquito for strategic bombing was growing rapidly by the end of the war, because of its relative invulnerability.

The first British jet bomber to see service was in effect a 'jet Mosquito', the Canberra, and that was also a superb and highly successful plane. The V-bombers were specifically designed to carry the atomic bomb to Moscow, something the Canberra couldn't manage at a time when they weighed 10,000 lb. Of course, the V-bombers were actually used for conventional bombing but that was a secondary role, not what they were designed for. The V-bombers were also much closer to 'big jet Mosquitos' in concept than the old heavies like the Lancaster and Lincoln - they carried no defensive armament, were as fast as fighters when designed and flew at extremely high altitude. Like the Mossie, they relied on speed and altitude to avoid interception.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Tony Williams

A few comments, using info from 'Bombs Gone', the standard work on British bombs and bombing:

The 8,000 lb HC bomb (known as the 'Super Cookie') did consist of two 4,000 lb elements bolted together, but these were not Cookies: the diameter of the 4,000 lb Cookie was 30 inches, the Super Cookie 38". The 12,000 lb HC consisted of three 38" diam elements.

The bigger bombs were uncommon. Only 193 12,000 lb HC were dropped, and 1,088 8,000 lb 'Super Cookies', compared with 68,000 Cookies, which became the RAF's standard blast bomb for area attacks. (Incidentally, of the two 'earthquake' MC bombs, 854 12,000 lb 'Tallboy' and just 41 22,000 lb 'Grand Slam' were dropped).





There is a good double page photo of the various RAF bombs in Goulding and Moyes RAF Bomber Command and its aircrfat 1941 - 1945 - I'll try to scan and post it.

Intrestingly it shows the 12,000 HC bomb with a standard bomb tail but the 8,000lb HC with a tail that maintains the bomb width all the way to the end with small holes in the top section.

There is also a 4,000lb MC bomb, now given RAF policy of using blast to open building up for incendiaries I cant see where this would be used although there is a referenece in Janes to the B24 being able to carry a 4,000lb bomb under each wing so is this a US bomb?

[Kutscha]

Site with Lancaster bomb loads and short description of the bombs, http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Lanc-bombs-Loads.htm

[Tony Williams]

The 4,000 lb MC bomb was a British weapon, designed for dropping at low level. Even when dropped from 100 feet, it created craters 14 feet deep and 54 feet wide. It was used by Mosquitos, fitted with an 11-second delay fuze. It was also used for general bombardment from high altitude.

TW

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

Site with Lancaster bomb loads and short description of the bombs, http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Lanc-bombs-Loads.htm


Intresting, dont suppose you have found one for the Halifax??

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Tony Williams

The 4,000 lb MC bomb was a British weapon, designed for dropping at low level. Even when dropped from 100 feet, it created craters 14 feet deep and 54 feet wide. It was used by Mosquitos, fitted with an 11-second delay fuze. It was also used for general bombardment from high altitude.

TW



Ahh right, dont suppose you have any information on the 4,000ld er that the B24 could carry externally (according to Janes and one website whose address I have since forgotten)?

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by PMN1

Intresting, dont suppose you have found one for the Halifax??


Nope :(

but I can give the bomb loadout for the Halifax III in which my name sake and all the crew went MIA in on a raid to Essen in Oct 44:

1 x 2000 lb HC Bomb
5 x 1000 lb SAP bombs
6 x 500 lb MC bomb

[Lightning]

Original quotes by Tony Williams:

quote:Mosquitos were used for far more than just 'nuisance' or diversionary raids. Between 1 Jan and 21 April 1945 they dropped about 1,500 'Cookies' on Berlin...
The RAF Bomber Command referred to these raids as just that--"nuisance raids".


quote:
It took a Lancaster four hours to reach Berlin, carrying an 8,800 lb bombload and flying at less than 20,000 feet. It took a Mosquito with a 4,000 lb bomb two hours, flying at 27,000 feet

Can anyone shed some light on what the climb speed and rate-of-climb were for a Mosquito carrying a 4000lb bombload? The Mosquito also carried two 100-gal (***edit: two 50-gal tanks with 4000lb load***edit) external fuel tanks on long-range missions, so add another 1200lb (***edit: 600lbs***edit) for fuel and factor in the extra drag. How long did it take to reach 27,000 ft, and, during this extended climb, what was its true airspeed? Also, what was its true cruising airspeed from the time it reached 27,000 ft to the time it reached Berlin? What about the figures for the return trip?

When it approached Berlin, did it remain at 27,000 ft [bombing accuracy with a cookie?], or did it begin a descent to lower altitude?

A comparison of the mission profile with the actual capabilities of the aircraft will determine whether exagerations have been made and perpetuated.


quote:The V-bombers were also much closer to 'big jet Mosquitos'...

It's getting out of hand, here, when heavy bombers are, instead of being replaced by the Mosquito, are now being given their attributes!
Is this a case of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"?

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

quote:The V-bombers were also much closer to 'big jet Mosquitos'...

It's getting out of hand, here, when heavy bombers are, instead of being replaced by the Mosquito, are now being given their attributes!
Is this a case of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"?




In a sense that is quite true.

Whilst the Americans and Russians continued to equip their bombers with defensive guns until the recent past, the British abandoned them with their post-war bombers. They were to use their speed and altitude as the best defence against attack.

Much like the original idea behind the Mosquito....

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Can anyone shed some light on what the climb speed and rate-of-climb were for a Mosquito carrying a 4000lb bombload? The Mosquito also carried two 100-gal (***edit: two 50-gal tanks with 4000lb load***edit) external fuel tanks on long-range missions, so add another 1200lb (***edit: 600lbs***edit) for fuel and factor in the extra drag. How long did it take to reach 27,000 ft, and, during this extended climb, what was its true airspeed? Also, what was its true cruising airspeed from the time it reached 27,000 ft to the time it reached Berlin? What about the figures for the return trip?

When it approached Berlin, did it remain at 27,000 ft [bombing accuracy with a cookie?], or did it begin a descent to lower altitude?

A comparison of the mission profile with the actual capabilities of the aircraft will determine whether exagerations have been made and perpetuated.


That would be useful information.

I did think that drop tanks were not required for a Mosquito to reach Berlin. Can anyone confirm or disprove that?

[Wuzak]

From my perspective it would be difficult to see that the Mosquito could compete with the Lancaster for bombing at night. Whilst losses may no doubt have been less (in percentage terms), the simple fact is that the Lancaster carried very heavy bomb loads.

The average Lancaster bomb load was around 10,000lb.

During the day time the speed of the Lancaster (or lack of it) plus its lack of defensive armament beneath made it especially vulnerable to day fighters. That is why the British switched to night time operations for their heavy bombers.


The B17s had the defensive armament, but also suffered quite heavily until escorts could be arranged for them.

The avarage bomb load for a B17 was around 4000lb. That load a Mosquito could definitely compete with. By dropping a single "cookie", or by making a higher number of raids with a smaller (2000/3000lb) bomb load.

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

From my perspective it would be difficult to see that the Mosquito could compete with the Lancaster for bombing at night. Whilst losses may no doubt have been less (in percentage terms), the simple fact is that the Lancaster carried very heavy bomb loads.


I suspect we've already been through this earlier in the thread, but anyway:

1. A Lanc will have cost probably three times as much to build as a Mossie. So in resources terms, you're not comparing a Lanc with Mossie - you're comparing a Lanc with three Mossies.

2. The Mossie loss rate, on similar missions, was around one-tenth that of a Lanc - which makes the cost differential even greater (not to talk of the losses of trained crewmen - given that a Lanc crew had 7 men and a Mossie 2, crew losses were around 30x higher in Lancs).

3. What this means is that if you could equip your bomber squadrons with Mossies to the same value (rather than the same number) as Lancs, you could deliver greater total bombloads with fewer losses. This was the conclusion reached by the RAF before the end of the war. The only advantage of the Lanc was that it could carry very heavy bombs, but as we have seen these were rarely used.

Of course, to do this would have meant much more pre-war planning in terms of training wood-workers, as the manufacturing methods for the Mossie were very different from other types, so production couldn't just be switched over.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[ickysdad]

But how much did these two competing entities, Lancasters & Mosquitos, benefit from one another??? And how much did each of the 2 airfoces ,USAAF & RAF, and thier respective aircraft benefit from one anothers doctrines(i.e. round the clock bombing)? In other words the value of all the working parts working together maybe far greater than the sum of the individual parts. Furthermore if you change how you do something the enemy is also likely to change his tatics.

[Ricky]

I still think that my scenario:

Daylight bombing by Mossie
Night bombing by Lanc / Halifax(?) / Mossie

is best.

But I am biased, as it is my theory![8D]

Lancs could not totally be replaced by Mossies, as sometimes a heavier bombload was needed. Large bombs were not often dropped, but they were dropped - and usually for a good reason. Like flattening U-boat pens, knocking holes in train tunnels, smashing underground factories, knocking out the V3 before it got started, etc.

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky,

For the most part, I agree with you. I would, however, not exclude the B-17 and B-24 from the day-bombing role. The Mosquito would definitely complement them, but would not replace them.

Remember, the Mosquito's performance gave it more of a chance against night fighters than against the more highly performing day fighters. It would not have fared as well against the Bf 109, Me 262, Fw 190, and Ta 152 as it did against the Bf 110 and Ju 88. (The He 219 is another matter, but there were just not enough of them.)

The fact that it was unarmed would have been as much a negative as a positive for a Mosquito being attacked by a day fighter. Yes, the armament would cause a decrease in speed, but a Mosquito carrying a 4000lb bombload could not outrun the above-mentioned fighters anyway, and it certainly could not outmaneuver them. Once it had a fighter on its tail, it would be far better to be able to shoot back than to try to evade.

In regards to previously mentioned loss rates of Mosquitos vs. Lancasters, it seems to have been forgotten that the Lancasters were facing a much more formidable Luftwaffe in early-to-mid war than the later-on-the-scene Mosquito Mk B XVI. It's apples-to-oranges.

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

Hi Lightning,

glad to see we mostly agree at last...:)

A couple of points...

1) I think that the Lancaster's loss rate remains higher than the Mosquito's when compared month-by-month...
I am not 100% sure, and would welcome some statistics!

2) I'm sure we've discussed speed / interception before... Speed does not make the Mossie impossible to intercept, but significantly harder to intercept. The faster you go, the less able your enemy is to intercept you. Adding guns has little merit, especially in something the size of a Mossie where you can only realistically have 1 gun position, so blind spots would be enourmous. Formation flying will never cover this adequately (remember the Wellingtons vs Me110s over Heligoland?). Best move is to include some fighter-bomber Mossies in the formation as nasty surprises. Actually, best move is to have a P-51 escort, but within the timeline...

Bottom line - my view is that more speed = greater survivability.
You take the opposite view, and with good reasons why, so I am happy to agree to disagree!

[DoBravery]

I see such a Mossie attack on a distant urban industrial target going like this. . .

Few hundred Mossies armed with Cookies cross the channel at high alt. A couple hundred miles from the target, they initiate a shallow dive helping them go very fast to the target area. Since they have no def. armament, a box formation is ruled out and a spread attack is used to ensure hits before intercept. Escorts would have difficulty keeping up and coordinating with the diving Mossies so the the fighters will try to secure the airspace around the target area.

Just as with most major attacks, the Luft spot the incoming waves and the likely targets are alerted. Anticipation grows for the young Mossie pilots who were rushed through training to accomodate the 3 Mossies built for every bomber. They're excited, they feel they're speed has caught the Luft. unprepared.

Streams of Mossies near the target low and fast when the roar of hundreds of AAA comes to life. Being so low, its not AAA barrage. Each gun is aiming at a plane, releasing a burst for that plane to deal with. The speed, low alt., wood, and weight of the cookie causes some of the struck planes to tumble before their pilots can react. Others are able to let go of the extra weight and break off the attack.

Still their are too many Mossies and the low flying pilots put their bombs on the mark leveling the target. As they pull out of their dive, they glance back to confirm their hit. Now they start looking all around for a friend to maybe form up with. They see some other planes approaching, but their not friendly. The Luft. fighters weren't sleeping, they were waiting a few thousand feet up. The Mossies have just pulled out of their attack and they can't evade the of diving Me's or FW's. Mossie pilots with fighter experience pull hard maneuvers making it difficult for the ME's. But in the back of their mind they know they're still deep in Germany, burning petrol, and are too mixed in to make a dash for it now. They're hoping an escort will swoop in as they contemplate ditching in the channel at best. Other pilots not too far off want to help, but fear being stuck in the same mess. Some Mossies are fortunate as several P-51's come to the rescue and ward off a pack of 2-3 interceptors. But the P-51's are reluctant to break up for each separated Mossie. They know their chances of killing Germans and making it back increases by sticking together and outnumbering their opponent in each engagement. Some P-51's are reluctant to follow the Mossies through the end of the bomb run. It only takes a little lead ball to damage their cooling system. The AAA is just too thich that low. Maybe they'll try to find some of those little packs ME 109's loitering for an ambush at med altitudes.

A few FW 190's regroup after diving in on a defenseless Mossie. Had this been a high altitude raid, they'd now be out of the fight. Not this time. Some climb and return to the fringes of the target area for more planes exiting their bomb run. Their chances are good. Mossies came in from and are now exiting in all directions.
Rather than go home yet, other interceptors know that many Mossies got chewed up and are limping home. They're making good speed, but are an easy kill. Some German aces are too proud and let they're green wingmen to get their "first." Everyone else got out of there as close to WOT as possible. No hard feelings, speed is everything. What could a box of mates do anyway. Rookie Germans that tried chasing too many experienced raiders get a second chance as Mossies that lingered to try a regroup are now crossing they're path.

Mossies are starting to come home. Many have dry tanks. Some ditch just short. They knew even with the initial high alt climb, the cookie, and the spread attack that they'd have just enough fuel. They just didn't know what to do once ME's were diving on them. Best strategy seems to be hold the stick with your knees and pray with your hands. (using the knees and keeping the hands busy avoids the temptation to turn). Some pilots brag of scoring a kill. But, many of them show up in a truck, wet with Channel. Damaged planes that slowed due to even the slightest drag or engine trouble, just never seem to show up again. The shark always gets the slowest swimmer. One plane returns with the pilot's arm shot off and assistance from the navigator. The unfunny joke that spreads is "it's better to loose an arm than an engine."

Bomber command is concerned. The Mossie's don't have surprise and the escorts can't coordinate with them. It's all about the escorts. Maybe if we have the fighter/bombers fly slower and tighter, they could be better guarded. Kind of like ships in a convoy. Rather than each ship doing its own thing (someone always bumping into a U-Boat), we'll make the Germans pay for getting too close. A larger formation will have to fly higher from the AAA. They'll just have to bomb together to level the whole area. The public seems content with the human loss rate. But they don't realize that half of those young men are fighter/bomber pilots the other navigators. The two hardest crews to train. We'll atleast the target was hit. I guess we're back to a war of attrition. By the way, how many hours flying do the latest trainees have?

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

I see such a Mossie attack on a distant urban industrial target going like this. . .


nice try DoBravery, but somewhat out of line with known doctrine (which is the little we can use to work this hypothetical).

What about 1500 bomber Mosquitos climb out of England with 1000 fighter bomber Mosquitos and a large number of P51s leaving earlier, at the same time and later to provide significant interference for Luftwaffe fighter intervention. The Mosquitos form three streams heading towards Berlin and around 60 miles from target the fighter bomber group drop to low altitude but following the same general track as their bomber stream. The bombers attack, as was their practice, in shallow dives, descending from 27000 feet to 20000 feet over target, dropping at airspeeds of 400+ mph. The stream coming downwind from the north will have a groundspeed of over 500 mph.

Heavy AA would have great difficulty traversing to pick up the high speed targets, massed vics of Mosquitos flying at stacked altitudes (Germans didn't have proximity fuses, they have to get the height right). Too high for light AA. The concentration of the AA units is more than disrupted by the fighter bomber Mosquitos arriving over the roof-tops making rocket, straffing and a/p bomb attacks on the well-mapped AA positions.

Luftwaffe aircraft concentrations have had difficulty. For weeks now radar had followed enormous masses of aircraft milling about and climbing to height over southern England, only to return to land with window falling about them. So radar had been late to spot the difference this time and the approaching Mosquito streams, which are cruising at above the German fighters' own cruise speed (producing a difficult enough task), are going to be here very soon. Attempts to produce concentrations of fighters are disrupted because the P51s are straffing airfields and making attacks/feints (with ignored feints becoming real attacks) on any German concentration that forms in the air. Those Luftwaffe aircraft which do make it into the stream area (now in shallow dive towards England and cruising at near 400 mph) are already running low on fuel (having had to climb, concentrate and pursue at full throttle) and find that the Mosquito fighter bombers which have rejoined their bomber colleagues are now hunting fighters (and we know Mosquito fighters can do that). An attack on an aircraft at close to your maximum speed means a tail chase, is the Mosquito on your flank and turning towards you a fighter or a bomber? Iron cross/wood cross? And outside the Mosquito streams the wave of fresh P51s are hunting lone German aircraft breaking out of the bomber stream, low on fuel, lower on ammunition and ripe for picking off.

... On a different matter - the first aircraft on the moon was a P51, I've seen the painting.

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky
1) I think that the Lancaster's loss rate remains higher than the Mosquito's when compared month-by-month...
I am not 100% sure, and would welcome some statistics!

I don't have comparative statistics to hand, but I'm certain that is correct, for reasons explained below.

quote:
2) I'm sure we've discussed speed / interception before... Speed does not make the Mossie impossible to intercept, but significantly harder to intercept. The faster you go, the less able your enemy is to intercept you....Bottom line - my view is that more speed = greater survivability. You take the opposite view, and with good reasons why, so I am happy to agree to disagree!


That isn't a matter of opinion, it's a simple fact which I've seen mathematically demonstrated. The key is the speed differential between bombers and interceptors. Against slow bombers, the interceptors have all the time in the world to get in the right position, form up to attack from their preferred angle, and launch repeated attacks. As the bomber speed increases, the interceptor's window of opportunity shrinks steadily. Just being faster than the bombers isn't enough as the interceptor has to climb from ground level to high altitude (during which it will be going more slowly than a cruising Mossie) then having reached the right altitude and location will need to be significantly faster than the Mossie to stand any chance of catching it before the fuel runs out, unless the Ground Control people have been able to put it in exactly the right place.

Adding fighter escorts - essential for the survivability of the slow B-17 and B-24 formations - would give further advantages to the Mossie, changing the interceptor's task from very difficult to almost impossible. I've no doubt, however, that escort tactics would need to be developed in a rather different way.

Incidentally, the safest altitudes for bombing (to avoid Flak) for a small fast plane like the Mossie went like this: safest was as high as possible (preferably 30,000+ feet), but next safest would have been in the intermediate altitudes of around 6,000-8,000 feet. This was just too high for 20mm or 37mm Flak to be effective, but low enough to cause major problems for the 88+mm guns, as the angular rate and speed changes would allow very few shots to be got off before the plane was out of range. The 55mm automatic Flak guns were intended to plug this gap, but they never made it into service.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Remember, the Mosquito's performance gave it more of a chance against night fighters than against the more highly performing day fighters. It would not have fared as well against the Bf 109, Me 262, Fw 190, and Ta 152 as it did against the Bf 110 and Ju 88. (The He 219 is another matter, but there were just not enough of them.)


Now, if we take this back to 1942/43 we eliminate the Ta-152 and the Me-262.

In 1942/3 the 109 and 190s that you are left with struggled with the speed and altitude of the Mosquitos.

The ability to carry a 4000lb bomb existed for the Mosquito in that period, but it wasn't considered a high priority at the time. The Mosquito bombers didn't get the latest engines until after the PR and NF versions, and after the likes of the Spitfire and Lancaster.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, the Ta-152 was specifically designed as a high altitude, high speed interceptor for the express purpose of shooting down.....













....Mosquitos! (Albeit the PR versions).

[Lightning]

Hi All,

The safest altitude to offset FLAK is as close to the ground as you can get, with the only exception being at an altitude higher than the AA guns/missles can reach. In a WWII scenario, if you went too high, you lost bombing accuracy, and very-low-level navigation and target aquisition were very difficult. Where does that leave you?

Regards,
Lightning

[DoBravery]

1. I don't see 2,500 Mossie pilots flying as well as the historical ones did.
2. The German interceptors wouldn't be hastily responding to a Mossie raid (as the Mossie enjoyed more historically). The interceptors would be there already waiting. With an attack of even a few hundred planes surprise goes out the window.
3. The P-51's couldn't tie up the interceptors any better than they did historically.
4. Everyone criticizes the B-17 accuracy. I see a Mossie flying 400mph dropping a cookie at 20,000ft being way worst. The whole point of the thread was a cookie would be more effective. The Mossie's bomb load is reduced a lot w/o the cookie. If a 1,000 planes are dropping the specialized cookies all over the place, even if the target is hit I think the cost-effectiveness is undesirable.
5. Though speed increases survivability, if the German planes are in position the Mossie is interceptable. Once a some German planes are on them, what is the Mossie to do? Unlike a 4 engine bomber, a decent German pilot could probably down a Mossie in one pass. If a group of Mossie's manuever into a furball, they just surrendered their ability to make a dash for it and they'd attract more ME's and FW's.
6. Flying at different levels increases the chances of hitting the target, but it also spreads apart the escorts. Are the P-51's protecting the high bombers or the low fghtr/bmbrs. What if the Germans focus in on one level. I forsee 1/3 P-51's with the inaccurate high group, 1/3 off hitting airfields, and 1/3 outnumbered-dodging AAA and trying to protect the low and slower Mossies that have ME's and FW's diving all over them. Without surpise and the ability to dive away, I still see low level fighter/bombers getting roughed up by AAA and fighters.
7. If Mossies were such great escorts, why were'nt they used sooner?
8. Just as the Germans geared there air defense to the high alt. 4 engine bombers, they would have made adjustments to a large scale Mossie force. I think we have to give them some credit to that effect. I don't think we can replace B-17's and Lancasters with Mossies and have expected the same historical Mossie loss rates and German air defense measures. Maybe a Mosquito stings Hitler on the nose the morning he first views the ME-262 and he has one of those revelations.[:o)]

I know we're just talking hypotheticals, but its fun.

By the way the first planes on the moon was a group of TBM Avengers, but they were disqualified due to UFO assistance.

PS My prays go out to the people of London.

[Kutscha]

DoB,

have you heard of JG25 and JG50? These were special units set up by Goering to go after some Mossies that had interupted functions by him and Goebels in Berlin in late Jan 1943. They had no success and were disbanded a few months later. Radar was of no use for the interceptions.

AVRO designed a internal rack that held 6 500lb bombs. Add 2 500lb on the wings and you have a 4000lb load.

The Germans had a hard time getting enough fighters together to intercept the slow heavies.

Agh, that is were those Bermuda Triangle Avengers went.

Lightning,

I wish you could say that flying low was safe for all those A2G pilots that did not return. Glad to see you say high level bombing is in-accurate. Why did not the heavies drop to a lower altitude for better accuracy?


Did you 2 miss this by Tony? "next safest would have been in the intermediate altitudes of around 6,000-8,000 feet. This was just too high for 20mm or 37mm Flak to be effective, but low enough to cause major problems for the 88+mm guns"

As to the Germans adapting to counter the Mossie, why would not the Allies adapt and modify tactics to support the Mossie. The production of the Hornet would have been advanced???

[simon]

It occurs to me that a lot of the late war German fighters had heavy armament to deal with the tough US heavies they encountered during the day, or to deal quickly with the RAF heavies they encountered at night, the armament I believe was either integral such as the Fw190A-8 (2x13mm Mgs, 4x20mm cannon) or could be augmented in underwing gondolas such as with field conversion kits (Rutzstatz? Apologees to RTF for the spelling!).

If their main targets were to be largely Mosquitoes I would imagine that in many cases this armament would be reduced, the Fw190A-8 for example could easily dispense with a pair of 20mm cannon and still remain a serious threat to a Mosquito. The decrease in armament would improve the performance of the German interceptors to some degree offsetting the speed advantage of the Mosquitoes.

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

The safest altitude to offset FLAK is as close to the ground as you can get, with the only exception being at an altitude higher than the AA guns/missles can reach.

Not if you're attacking a fixed target, ringed by light Flak. The German 20mm and 37mm Flak had a deadly reputation against low-flying planes. Even against Russian light Flak, Rudel reckoned that close support was a bad idea - it was only feasible in a flowing battle with no concentrations of Flak.

quote:In a WWII scenario, if you went too high, you lost bombing accuracy, and very-low-level navigation and target aquisition were very difficult. Where does that leave you?


Doing the obvious - fly in at high altitude until you locate the target, then dive to attack. That's what they actually did.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[DoBravery]

Actually I think the biggest pro Mossie statement has been made by the relative silence by all the Me109 and FW190 lovers on this forum.
:)

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

1
2. The German interceptors wouldn't be hastily responding to a Mossie raid (as the Mossie enjoyed more historically). The interceptors would be there already waiting. With an attack of even a few hundred planes surprise goes out the window.

You are forgetting that bombing raids flew an indirect course (or courses - split into groups) to keep the Germans guessing about the target for as long as possible. They had two choices: to send up the fighters in advance and risk sending them to cover the wrong target, or to wait until the target was obvious, in which case they had a desperate rush to try to climb and intercept.

quote:3. The P-51's couldn't tie up the interceptors any better than they did historically.

Which was very well indeed. Loss rates of the bombers tumbled when they were escorted, and the cream of the Luftwaffe died trying to attack them.

quote:4. Everyone criticizes the B-17 accuracy. I see a Mossie flying 400mph dropping a cookie at 20,000ft being way worst. The whole point of the thread was a cookie would be more effective. The Mossie's bomb load is reduced a lot w/o the cookie. If a 1,000 planes are dropping the specialized cookies all over the place, even if the target is hit I think the cost-effectiveness is undesirable.

The B-17s flew and bombed from more than 20,000 feet. So why should a Mossie bombing from 20,000 feet be any less accurate?

quote:5. Though speed increases survivability, if the German planes are in position the Mossie is interceptable.

Of course it was - they were occasionally shot down. But not many were intercepted, which should tell you something.

quote:6. Flying at different levels increases the chances of hitting the target, but it also spreads apart the escorts. Are the P-51's protecting the high bombers or the low fghtr/bmbrs.

They're doing what they did in practice: some flying ahead to break up any attempt by the interceptors to get into attack position, some flying above and behind to pick off the ones doing tail chases.

quote:8. Just as the Germans geared there air defense to the high alt. 4 engine bombers, they would have made adjustments to a large scale Mossie force. I think we have to give them some credit to that effect. I don't think we can replace B-17's and Lancasters with Mossies and have expected the same historical Mossie loss rates and German air defense measures.

Of course they would. But the mathematics of intercepting a fast, high-flying target would still be against them, and the Mossie would continue to suffer far lower loss rates than the slow heavies.[/quote]

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha



AVRO designed a internal rack that held 6 500lb bombs. Add 2 500lb on the wings and you have a 4000lb load.




I thought they only just managed to squeeze the 4 x 500lb internally by reducing the size of ther tail fins - how did they arrange 6 x 500lb?

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by PMN1

I thought they only just managed to squeeze the 4 x 500lb internally by reducing the size of ther tail fins - how did they arrange 6 x 500lb?


No drawings have come to light, yet. Would guess the 3rd bomb would be hung between and below the 2 already there. Might need bulged doors, not that the bulge was that great anyways, though some want to make a big deal out of the bulge.

[Double T]

This all sounds familiar in doctrine to me...
"The Ode to the Schnellbomber?"

Tim

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

1. I don't see 2,500 Mossie pilots flying as well as the historical ones did.
We are talking a change in doctrine, there were probably 1500 Mosquito pilots, take away 500 B17s and you add another 1000 pilots. Train as pilots those who were removed from pilot training to aircrew to feed other roles in the 7 person bombers (with one pilot).
quote:2. The German interceptors wouldn't be hastily responding to a Mossie raid (as the Mossie enjoyed more historically). The interceptors would be there already waiting. With an attack of even a few hundred planes surprise goes out the window.
Not if they have been spoofed for weeks with clouds of window/practise take-offs and assemblies
quote:3. The P-51's couldn't tie up the interceptors any better than they did historically.
Yes they would. The Mosquitos would be approaching at twice the speed of the B-17s, which (given fixed time to height) markedly limits the time for assembly of fighter units. Even minimal disruption would eat savagely into the time available, especially as vectors to intercept the Mosquitos would be much more critical (geometry - relative speed arguments).
quote:4. Everyone criticizes the B-17 accuracy. I see a Mossie flying 400mph dropping a cookie at 20,000ft being way worst.
Mosquitos had a reputation for accurate bombing at night (with oboe) and during the day
quote:If a 1,000 planes are dropping the specialized cookies all over the place, even if the target is hit I think the cost-effectiveness is undesirable.
There isn't a pinpoint target, this is an area attack on a city.
quote:5. Though speed increases survivability, if the German planes are in position the Mossie is interceptable. Once a some German planes are on them, what is the Mossie to do? Unlike a 4 engine bomber, a decent German pilot could probably down a Mossie in one pass.
Mosquitos would be much harder to hit, and were known for their resilience and capacity to absorb damage
quote:If a group of Mossie's manuever into a furball
They'd be very stupid
quote:6. Flying at different levels increases the chances of hitting the target, but it also spreads apart the escorts.
?
quote:Are the P-51's protecting the high bombers
Yes, but not in a close support role (I don't think they could cruise fast enough to keep up)
quote:Without surpise and the ability to dive away, I still see low level fighter/bombers getting roughed up by AAA and fighters.
not historical, Mosquito fighter bombers penetrated to hit well defended targets with limited losses. Rooftop = too low for AA fire, fighters chasing fighter bombers would be letting the real bombers through.
quote:7. If Mossies were such great escorts, why were'nt they used sooner?
Key to this scenario is that they are exactly matched to the aircraft they are escorting and very hard to tell apart in the air.
quote:8. Just as the Germans geared there air defense to the high alt. 4 engine bombers, they would have made adjustments to a large scale Mossie force. I think we have to give them some credit to that effect.
They tried. Ineffectually - Mosquito crew tour lengths were doubled to 60 missions because survival was so good wrt heavies.
quote:I don't think we can replace B-17's and Lancasters with Mossies and have expected the same historical Mossie loss rates and German air defense measures.
Agree - but with piston engined aircraft the Mosquito was pushing the envelope ... it would have been like Gloster Gladiators attacking Heinkel 111s
quote:Maybe a Mosquito stings Hitler on the nose the morning he first views the ME-262 and he has one of those revelations.[:o)]
Another thread ... and they never could build the engines for those
quote:I know we're just talking hypotheticals, but its fun.
Yes.

There were some very fixed ideas on strategy on both sides. Heavies were needed for pin-point attacks on reinforced targets, but the Lanc could only just carry the Grand Slam, and the Tallboy was also a challenging load.
Harris would never have given up his heavies. Freeman Dyson's first autobiography points out that the OR group showed Lancs without gunners would have greater survivability and that that couldn't be implemented (except for a few special squadrons carrying Tallboys/Grand Slams), also that the Lanc pilot escape hatch was 2" smaller than that on the Halifax, which halved survivability of pilots trying to exit the aircraft, but again that wasn't fixed until the end of the war. They did stop the addition of extra anti-icing equipment however.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon

There were some very fixed ideas on strategy on both sides.

And these fixed ideas very nearly stopped the Mosquito before it started.

It was also these fixed ideas that saw priorities given to PR and NF variants. Bomber variants, ironically, were quite low prority (considering that the Mosquito was designed as a bomber).

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon

There were some very fixed ideas on strategy on both sides.

And these fixed ideas very nearly stopped the Mosquito before it started.

It was also these fixed ideas that saw priorities given to PR and NF variants. Bomber variants, ironically, were quite low prority (considering that the Mosquito was designed as a bomber).


Yes, we have some here with fixed inflexable ideas.;)

PR priority was not such a bad thing as intel was required on the targets that required bombing. Night bombers required long range protection. A catch 22.;)

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

You'll have to explain your "A2G" comment. I'm not familiar with what you're getting at.

The inaccuracy of high-level bombing to which I referred was in regards to Mosquitos dropping "cookies" from those heights, not to the accuracy of high altitude bombing using aerodynamically predictable bombs and state-of-the-art bombsights such as the Norden and the one the British had (I forget its nomenclature).

Have you ever seen photographs of the cookie being loaded into a Mosquito's bulged bomb bay? It looks like an over-sized garbage can or a depth charge! With its cylindrical shape and flat ends, its trajectory could never begin to be predicted from four miles up and moving horizontally at close to 400 mph, no matter how good the bombsight was or how well the bombrun was flown.

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

It is predictable.

It falls a bit, them tumbles, then tumbles some more, then...
Oh, I see.

[Wuzak]

Another's observations on the topic.


http://www.2worldwar2.com/mosquito.htm



Also, it is worth looking through the other essays on the site.
http://www.2worldwar2.com/

[Lightning]

Hi T. Williams,

The scenarios under discusion here do not address "a fixed target ringed by light Flak". We have been talking about dropping heavy bomb loads on Berlin. Such a large area can hardly be referred to as a fixed target, in the normal sense, and it was not primarily defended by light FLAK. The main anti-aircraft threat to the bombers over Berlin was from the 88mm gun, which, I think you'll agree, was the premier anti-aircraft cannon of the war.

Although deadly at medium-to-high altitudes, these guns could not aquire, establish a lead on, and track a fast-moving target at treetop level before it was out of range. Even the RADAR-controlled guns were nullified at such low altitudes because they couldn't "lock on" the target in time.

When I was in the military, we were trained in how to react to low-level attacks on our armored columns. All the 50-cal gunners were taught to point their guns straight-up and hold the triggers down as the aircraft flew over on their run. It was useless to try to aim. You would never hear or see an attacking plane at such low level until it was too late to engage it with aimed fire. This was true of airplanes flying no faster than WWII types. If you can't swing a 50-cal M-2 into action in such a short interval, imagine trying to do it with an 88mm!

As to coming in at high level, identifying the target, and then diving down to drop the bombload, I have two comments. First, the examples put forth earlier by the Mosquito advocates (not only in this thread) described the Mk B XVI night raids on Berlin as being accomplished by approaching the target at over 25,000 feet at a speed of about 400 mph. The "cookie" was dropped at this altitude, and the Mosquito then withdrew at about 400 mph. Nothing was said about diving down on the target.
Second, I seriously question the ability of a Mosquito to execute a steep, high-speed descent (dive-bombing?) attack from 25,000 feet while carrying a 4000-pound bomb, at night, under fire, while keeping the target in sight the whole time. Impossible? Probably not, but very unlikely. And how many would be doing this at the same time? No, I do not believe that this is "doing the obvious".

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Wuzak,

I read ,with interest, your recommended web site. It was very good. It is, however, a compilation of selected essays on the subject.

The writer(s) of these essays are probably very knowledgeable, but I don't believe they are any more knowledgeble than those among our group who hold the same views. They neither prove nor disprove the point. We just happen to disagree.

Regards,
Lightning

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Wuzak,

I read ,with interest, your recommended web site. It was very good. It is, however, a compilation of selected essays on the subject.

The writer(s) of these essays are probably very knowledgeable, but I don't believe they are any more knowledgeble than those among our group who hold the same views. They neither prove nor disprove the point. We just happen to disagree.

Regards,
Lightning


I didn't mean that it would be proof. Just another person's point of view.

There are some other interesting essays on that site. One in which the author opines that the war was lost by Germany on December 7th 1941 (or that it lost the ability to win the war). Not because the Americans entered the war that day, but rather that they suffered a defeat at the hands of the Russians, which made it clear that the operation to defeat Russia had failed.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Second, I seriously question the ability of a Mosquito to execute a steep, high-speed descent (dive-bombing?) attack from 25,000 feet while carrying a 4000-pound bomb, at night, under fire, while keeping the target in sight the whole time. Impossible? Probably not, but very unlikely. And how many would be doing this at the same time? No, I do not believe that this is "doing the obvious".


I don't believe a steep dive was ever suggested or contemplated.

What has been said is that the Mosquitos would cruise towards the target at an altitude of 25,000-30,000ft, then several miles from the target they would begin a shallow descent (dive) towards the target area, arrivng at the target at an altitude of roughly 20,000ft and a speed of 400mph or so.

If they were to dive bomb, bearing in mind the Mosquito's lack of air brakes, the speed would be, I'm sure, vastly greater than 400mph!

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Second, I seriously question the ability of a Mosquito to execute a steep, high-speed descent (dive-bombing?) attack from 25,000 feet while carrying a 4000-pound bomb, at night, under fire, while keeping the target in sight the whole time. Impossible? Probably not, but very unlikely. And how many would be doing this at the same time? No, I do not believe that this is "doing the obvious".


I don't believe a steep dive was ever suggested or contemplated.

...

If they were to dive bomb, bearing in mind the Mosquito's lack of air brakes, the speed would be, I'm sure, vastly greater than 400mph!

Mosquitos were used to dive bomb markers onto target by 617 squadron RAF. They shortly switched to P51 Mustangs.
The Mosquitos used aged very quickly.
Source Paul Brickhall 'The Dam Busters'

[simon]

So were Lancasters initially... ;)

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

I read ,with interest, your recommended web site. It was very good. It is, however, a compilation of selected essays on the subject.

The writer(s) of these essays are probably very knowledgeable, but I don't believe they are any more knowledgeble than those among our group who hold the same views. They neither prove nor disprove the point. We just happen to disagree.


Quote fom said site:

"Bomber command used the De Havilland Mosquito to improve the very poor accuracy of the heavy bombers and to reduce their losses, but it refused to consider the alternative, which was finally adopted only after world war 2 and dominates modern air power since. The alternative was to replace the big and slow and expensive heavy bombers with the Mosquito as Bomber command's main bomber. The points in favor of this alternative were also clearly presented by group commander Bennett, as a comparison between the Mosquito and the Lancaster, which was the best british heavy bomber:

Mosquito carries to Berlin half the bomb load carried by a Lancaster, but...

Mosquito loss rate is just 1/10 of Lancasters' loss rate

Mosquito costs a third of the cost of a Lancaster

Mosquito has a crew of two, compared to a Lancaster's crew of seven

Mosquito was a proven precision day bomber and the Lancaster was not.

Bennett added that any way you do the math with those data, "It's quite clear that the value of the Mosquito to the war effort is significantly greater than that of any other aircraft in the history of aviation". In the german side, Erhard Milch, the deputy head of the luftwaffe, said about the Mosquito "I fear that one day the british will start attacking with masses of this aircraft". But in one of the greatest allied mistakes in world war 2, bomber command persisted with its heavy bombers, and less than 1/4 of the Mosquitoes produced were of bomber types."

Bennett was the leader of the Pathfinder force. I would regard his opinion as outweighing those of everyone in this forum put together. Milch had direct experience of this issue as well.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

quote:Originally posted by PMN1

Intresting, dont suppose you have found one for the Halifax??


Nope :(

but I can give the bomb loadout for the Halifax III in which my name sake and all the crew went MIA in on a raid to Essen in Oct 44:

1 x 2000 lb HC Bomb
5 x 1000 lb SAP bombs
6 x 500 lb MC bomb


British Warplanes of WW2 has the bomb bay as being 22 foot long but doesn't give its width.

[Kutscha]

PMN1,

I think the RAF Museum put out a book, Vol 3, that was the manaul for the Hallie. They also did one on the Lanc, Spit V, Mossie Mk?(#6) and Hurrie II/IV.

This place has it listed, www.dunholme.demon.co.uk/general.htm. #G.202A

They are fabulous books. I had the Mossie one but gave it as a gift to a friend.

Another place you could try is, http://www.greenhillbooks.com/

[Lightning]

Hi T. Williams,

RE Loss rates of Lancasters vs Mosquitos:
You can't get the true picture here by comparing Lancaster losses in the early stages of the war against the fully trained, fully equipped Luftwaffe with the Mosquito losses later in the war against a defeated, depleted, poorly trained Luftwaffe with not enough fuel to train its pilots or put sufficient numbers of aircraft in the air.

Re Lancasters costing Three times more than Mosquitos: In war, this cannot be the top priority. As an example, the B-29 project cost three billion dollars before the first planes were in action. It was never regretted.

Re The seven-man Lancaster crew vs the two-man Mosquito crew: Again, not as it appears to be when you consider the much higher standards and longer, more extensive training (not to mention cost, since that was brought-up earlier) it took to produce the Mosquito crews. When you lost seven Mosquito crewmen, you lost 3 1/2 bombers and their far-more-highly-trained crews.

Re Mosquito being a precision day bomber: At what ranges, bombloads, altitudes, total tonnages dropped? How much actual destruction was achieved overall when compared to the heavy day bombers? What are we talking about here?

AS far as Erhart Milch's comment is concerned, if it had been made by Adolf Galland, I would put much more stock in it.

AS to the following:

quote:Bennett added that any way you do the math with those data, "It's quite clear that the value of the Mosquito to the war effort is significantly greater than that of any other aircraft in the history of aviation".

If I had to choose the most over-exagerated, unrealistic statement that completely over-rates the importance of any single war machine or weapon (with the possible exception of the atomic bomb), that would be it! To even suggest that the Mosquito was more significant to the war effort than the B-29 Superfortress is laughable. So much for Bennett's objectivity.

And remember, WWII was fought all over the globe. How much did the Mosquito contribute to the war effort in the Pacific, against the Japanese Home Islands, on the Eastern Front, in North Africa, throughout the Medeterranian, in the China-Burma-India Theater (CBI), etc., etc., etc.?

And in Europe, what about the Spitfire, Mustang, and Thunderbolt? Even if it had replaced the heavy bombers in daylight, the Mosquito would have needed these fighters for escorts, or they would not have been nearly as effective as they are being given credit for.

The Mosquito was a great plane; I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It was not, however, the "Excaliber" it is touted to be, endowed with all the mystical powers of that weapon. It was not invulnerable, inexorable, or undefeatable. It was a great airplane that could, like other great airplanes, be intercepted and shot down. Quite a few were. It's just fortunate that in their heyday, i.e. the later-war night raids on Germany at a time when it was at its weakest, the Mosquitos owed their success as much to the enemy's shattered defences as to their own prowess.

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

RE Loss rates of Lancasters vs Mosquitos:
You can't get the true picture here by comparing Lancaster losses in the early stages of the war against the fully trained, fully equipped Luftwaffe with the Mosquito losses later in the war against a defeated, depleted, poorly trained Luftwaffe with not enough fuel to train its pilots or put sufficient numbers of aircraft in the air.

But a comparison of loss rates of both types in 1944 alone should be fair, right?

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

If I had to choose the most over-exagerated, unrealistic statement that completely over-rates the importance of any single war machine or weapon (with the possible exception of the atomic bomb), that would be it! To even suggest that the Mosquito was more significant to the war effort than the B-29 Superfortress is laughable. So much for Bennett's objectivity.
But Lightning, don't you know that the Mosquito won the war for the Allies - just like the Me262 nearly did for Germany...:D

Actually, another controversial question. The B-29 was damn good, but what did it actually achieve during WW2 that the Lanc could not? or the B-17 (aside from the nukes in this case), or the B-24?

I await your responses...:)

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

RE Loss rates of Lancasters vs Mosquitos:
You can't get the true picture here by comparing Lancaster losses in the early stages of the war against the fully trained, fully equipped Luftwaffe with the Mosquito losses later in the war against a defeated, depleted, poorly trained Luftwaffe with not enough fuel to train its pilots or put sufficient numbers of aircraft in the air.


The Luftwaffe night-fighter force suffered nothing like the attririon of the day fighters and remained formidable until late in the war. In fact, in 1944 their technical developments (improved radar, Schräge Musik, homing devices) reached such a peak that Bomber Command was becoming seriously worried about their loss rates.

In any case, whichever way you look at it, the basic mathematical fact remains: a small, hard to detect plane cruising about as fast as the interceptors and at considerable height, will always be many times harder to intercept than a big, slow-flying, lower-flying plane. So the Mossie's loss rates will always be a small fraction of the Lancaster's, in any comparable circumstances.

quote:Re Lancasters costing Three times more than Mosquitos: In war, this cannot be the top priority. As an example, the B-29 project cost three billion dollars before the first planes were in action. It was never regretted.

It isn't the money that matters, it's the resources. Lose a Lanc and you lose four Merlin engines not two. You lose complex turrets made by factories which would otherwise be producing other war products. The USA may have had had a big enough industrial base not to be too worried about such matters, but the UK did not.

quote:Re The seven-man Lancaster crew vs the two-man Mosquito crew: Again, not as it appears to be when you consider the much higher standards and longer, more extensive training (not to mention cost, since that was brought-up earlier) it took to produce the Mosquito crews. When you lost seven Mosquito crewmen, you lost 3 1/2 bombers and their far-more-highly-trained crews.

The Commonwealth Air Training scheme was highly successful, and produced a surplus of pilots. Trained pilots were being used for other flying duties as they weren't needed. That wasn't a problem.

quote:uito being a precision day bomber: At what ranges, bombloads, altitudes, total tonnages dropped? How much actual destruction was achieved overall when compared to the heavy day bombers? What are we talking about here?

??? We're not discussing what they achieved here, but what they could have achieved if resources had been devoted to building up the Mossie force rather than the heavies.

quote:AS to the following:

quote:Bennett added that any way you do the math with those data, "It's quite clear that the value of the Mosquito to the war effort is significantly greater than that of any other aircraft in the history of aviation".

If I had to choose the most over-exagerated, unrealistic statement that completely over-rates the importance of any single war machine or weapon (with the possible exception of the atomic bomb), that would be it! To even suggest that the Mosquito was more significant to the war effort than the B-29 Superfortress is laughable. So much for Bennett's objectivity.

First, Bennett's focus was on Bomber Command's night campaign amnd should be looked at in that context. Second, he was trying to convince a sceptical audience that they should wake up and take the potential of the Mosquito seriously, instead of plodding on with their heavy bombers. And finally, the term 'significant' in this context doesn't mean what it achieved, but what it was capable of achieving if only it were adopted in larger numbers. Sure he was guilty in his final sentence (but not in the facts he quoted) of hyperbole to make a point - a not uncommon characteristic of people in warfare.

quote:The Mosquito was a great plane; I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It was not, however, the "Excaliber" it is touted to be, endowed with all the mystical powers of that weapon. It was not invulnerable, inexorable, or undefeatable. It was a great airplane that could, like other great airplanes, be intercepted and shot down. Quite a few were.

Agreed - they were shot down. But far less often, pro-rata, than any other bomber venturing over Germany. There was nothing magical about that - it was primarily a function of speed, with high altitude and low detectability also playing a part.

quote:It's just fortunate that in their heyday, i.e. the later-war night raids on Germany at a time when it was at its weakest, the Mosquitos owed their success as much to the enemy's shattered defences as to their own prowess.

See my previous comment: it didn't matter what the circumstances were, the Mossie would always be a more efficient, less costly method of bomb delivery than any other bomber in the European war - by a wide margin.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Lightning]

Would'a, should'a, could'a. Expectations don't always equate to what really comes about. In the final analysis, I think the answer to the following question says it all:

If you were in Berlin during any phase of the war, which would you rather have overhead, day or night, a Mosquito bomber or a Lancaster?

Regards,
Lightning

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

If you were in Berlin during any phase of the war, which would you rather have overhead, day or night, a Mosquito bomber or a Lancaster?

Perhaps you should say: between a Mosquito overhead and a Lancaster that would have been there if it hadn't been shot down? [8D]

Rather a pointless question, actually. It's like saying 'if you were in battle, would you rather be shot by an M-16 or a Kalashnikov?' To which my answer would be 'neither, thanks all the same'.

TW

[pmjwright]

quote:Re Lancasters costing Three times more than Mosquitos: In war, this cannot be the top priority.

Cost and resources were a huge issue for the UK in the war--the shortage of materials, further affected by the U-boat war; maintaining armed forces on many fronts; and the $$ (Pounds) to pay for it all. Britain was nearly bankrupt early in the war and never caught up for years afterwards. It looks obvious in hindsight that the leaders should have realized there may have been huge benefits of the cheaper/faster/smaller crewed Mosquito supplemented with smaller numbers of Lancs for the heavy jobs. But, as pointed out, the mindsets were on heavy bombers, and it takes years for doctrines to change.

And just a reminder that many of the Mossie's more famous raids were conducted in daylight--Amiens Prison, Gestapo HQ in Oslo/The Hague/ Copenhagen/Aarhus, bombing the diesel works in Copenhagen, raining on Goering's (and Goebbel's) parade in Berlin. Of course, these surprise raids were an entirely different tactic from this thread's scenario. My point is that many of these were carried out in daylight in the years when the Luftwaffe was still very formidable--1942-43-44. So the Mossie didn't just owe its success to a depleted Luftwaffe at the end of the war. I believe that the Berlin raid of Jan 31,1943 was the first daylight bombing of that city.

I know this thread started with the idea of Lancs + some Mossies, but evolved into the idea of Mossies performing the main role. But you know, the modern military has actually evolved this way, as we have seen in Iraq, Kosovo etc--large numbers of small fast fighter-bombers performing tactical and strategic missions, and supplemented by small numbers of heavies. Of course the technology is so different, and carpet bombing of cities is out, but it's amazing to think how the idea that was born in small, fast bombers like the Mossie has developed today!

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by pmjwright

[quote]But, as pointed out, the mindsets were on heavy bombers, and it takes years for doctrines to change.

Not just in that era. One can see that here.;)

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Would'a, should'a, could'a. Expectations don't always equate to what really comes about.


Lighten up Lightning - this is a fun, speculative thread. It is all counter-factual history.

Wrt the B29 (which I praised and defended on a thread about a year ago). This aircraft was a generation ahead of WW II, but it didn't become a real weapon of war until the post-war B50. If we look at B29 performance in (say) March 1945 it was a failure. It had been unable to carry out precision high altitude attacks over Japan despite a lot of money being spent on it. The engines weren't reliable at altitude, downwind the bombsight couldn't handle the speed, upwind it hovered over the ground, cross wind the bombsight couldn't compensate. Curtis LeMay's change of strategy made the B29 a fearsome and effective implement. In late 1944, early 1945 it wasn't, there was even talk of putting the atomic bombs into Lancasters because the B29 may not have been reliable enough.

Even dropped without opposition or interference both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were some distance from their designated aiming points (not that that mattered much to anything but professional pride!).

Back to our speculations. I have just been rereading R.V. Jones' 'Most Secret War'. In his work on electronic countermeasures he has a table showing that in late 1944 when the heavies turned off their IFF (which the Germans queried, thankyou), their Monica tail-warning units (which the Germans tracked, thankyou) and observed radio silence with H2S only used over the target, the losses dropped to less than 1% of aircraft. This was also at a time nightfighter Mosquitos were disencouraging German nightfighters (an extra crew member was added to allow a lookout for British nightfighters). According to the air defence general commanding the Germans needed 200km warning of the approaching raid to organise themselves, with jammed radar and allied armies on their western border this couldn't be done. Losses of heavies plummeted.

Relevance - with Mosquitos that would be 400km, which means they would have been very hard to meet even flying from Britain with German radar on the French/Belgian/Dutch coasts.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Would'a, should'a, could'a. Expectations don't always equate to what really comes about.


This is why it is called an hypothesis.




quote:Originally posted by Lightning

In the final analysis, I think the answer to the following question says it all:

If you were in Berlin during any phase of the war, which would you rather have overhead, day or night, a Mosquito bomber or a Lancaster?


What would it matter to the Germans either way if the same level of ordinance was being dropped in a 24 hour period?

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky


Actually, another controversial question. The B-29 was damn good, but what did it actually achieve during WW2 that the Lanc could not? or the B-17 (aside from the nukes in this case), or the B-24?

I await your responses...:)


Oh now you've done it.....

:D

[DoBravery]

The B-29 is just the natural progression and advancement of the US bomber forces. I think you can only compare the B-17, B-24, and Lancaster because at that point the allies were already winning the war. Lesser demands were being asked of allied bombers in general.

Oh and about that whole docrine and era talk. . .
Considering the advent of missles and later stealth. . .
In speed vs. heavy, I think the B-52 has the last laugh.[:p]

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky,

The B-29 could fly higher, faster, and farther than the planes you mentioned. It could also carry a heavier bombload while doing it. Its guns were state-of-the-art remote-controlled.

It devastated Japanese cities by high-altitude heavy bombing and low-altitude fire bombing, not to mention dropping the atom bomb. It was superior in just about every way.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi pmjwright,

The "Arc Light" raids in Viet Nam, and the bombing of whole mountain ridges during the present war are good examples of what B-52s can be used for in the tactical sense. As far as strategic bombing is concerned, missles with multiple nuclear warheads have superceded the airplane for the most part.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi T. Williams,

The Luftwaffe night fighter force suffered at least as much degradation as the day fighters. The number and types of aircraft available near the end of the war, no matter how well they were equipped, was not the problem. In fact, fighter production was actually increased. It doesn't matter how many planes they had, they just didn't have the fuel and well-trained crews to fly them.

Although your point about "resources" is well taken, your original statement of the relative costs was, "Mosquito costs a third the cost of a Lancaster". This didn't imply cost in resources. Your example, for instance, of the relative numbers of Merlin engines involved does not equate to 3:1. It is 2:1. I believe the ratio of 3:1 money-wise sounds reasonable, but, in terms of resources, such a statement is too simplistic. Statistics, pro and con, could be bandied about ad infinitum with no reasonable resolution.

There may have been a surplus of pilots turned out by Air Training Command, but there never was a surplus (or even a fully adequate number) of Mosquito Pathfinder and Light Night Striking Force (LNSF) crews.

Bennett's statement revisited: Just to provide balance, the following exageration was made by Sir Arthur "Bomber") Harris: "The Lancaster was the greatest single factor in winning the war." So, you see, foolish statements are often made on both sides of an issue by supposedly knowledgeable people. I'll disregard Harris's claim if you'll do the same with Bennett's.

I believe you really did get the point regarding the Mosquito-vs-Lancaster-overhead question. In keeping with your reply, I'd rather be fired at with a .22 cal rifle than a .300 magnum rifle any day. Yes, they both can kill, but which one would you rather face?

I believe your statement that the Mosquito's loss rate was only 1/10 that of the Lancaster was comparing the LNSF losses against the total number of Lancaster losses during the war. By the last six or seven months of the war in Europe, Bomber Commands losses of all types were down drastically. In October 1944 when the attacks against German cities were resumed, Bomber Command's losses were 75 aircraft lost for 10,193 sorties flown. Even if all of these were Lancasters, this only amounts to 0.74%. Over all, the LSNF (which was a relatively late-war force) lost 108 Mosquitos for 27,239 sorties for a loss rate of 0.40%. Here, we are more-realistically comparing losses to both types relatively late in the war. The ratio is nowhere near 10:1. And which bombers wrought more destruction over all during this period?

Statistics can be torturously twisted to say anything or make any point. When it comes to tons dropped per engine hour, per crewman hour, per gallons of fuel per hour, etc.,etc.,etc., what kind of statistics could be generated and rationalized for a stripped-down P-51 carrying a 500-pound bomb to Berlin? This is, of course, a flight of fancy, but it serves to illustrate my point.

And lastly, since you brought up Erhard Milch's fear of increased use of Mosquitos by the British, why did he oppose increased development and production of the Mosquito-killing He 219 "Uhu" night fighter in favor of stepping up production of the Ju 88G to combat the heavy-bomber night raids?

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi wuzak,

quote:What would it matter to the Germans either way if the same level of ordinance was being dropped in a 24 hour period?

First of all, with more Lancasters, each carrying three times the bombload, it would be VERY unlikely for Mosquitos to take the same load to Berlin over less than a 12-hour period. Remember, these raids were carried out at night, so there were not 24 uninterupted hours in which to fly.

Secondly, the difference between a given number of bombs being dropped at one time as opposed to spreading out that same number over a lengthy time can be illustrated by comparing the effect of an artillery barrage with the effect of the same number of shells fired over a considerable interval. The latter not only has far less psychological effect, but it also allows time to repair and prepare.

Regards,
Lightning

[Double T]

I suppose this point comes under "comfort-factor" but no-one has mentioned the fact that B-29 airmen enjoyed "pressurized-crew compartments" that made those long missions more tolerable without the adverse factors of sub-zero temps at altitude.
Compared to previous bombers, this meant no frostbite, no bulky clothing, gloves, or electrically-heated flight-suits. I would think this to be an unimaginable luxury to flight-crews, and made them more effective gunners, navigators, pilots, etc.
The Lancaster, B-17 and B-24's were great planes with well-deserved reputations... but not in the same class as the Boeing B-29A Superfortress.

Tim

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

The B-29 could fly higher, faster, and farther than the planes you mentioned. It could also carry a heavier bombload while doing it. Its guns were state-of-the-art remote-controlled.

It devastated Japanese cities by high-altitude heavy bombing and low-altitude fire bombing, not to mention dropping the atom bomb. It was superior in just about every way.

But practically, escort fighters were more use than defensive guns, and the high-altitude capabilities of the B-29 were shelved in favour of medium-level incendiary attacks. Heavier bombload I'll give you, though Lancs could have carried the atomic bombs.

P.S: I'm impressed that we are having 3 debates in one thread, and that Lightning is the opposing side in all three!:D

quote:Originally posted by Double T

I suppose this point comes under "comfort-factor" but no-one has mentioned the fact that B-29 airmen enjoyed "pressurized-crew compartments" that made those long missions more tolerable without the adverse factors of sub-zero temps at altitude.
Compared to previous bombers, this meant no frostbite, no bulky clothing, gloves, or electrically-heated flight-suits. I would think this to be an unimaginable luxury to flight-crews, and made them more effective gunners, navigators, pilots, etc.
Yup, can't fault you there.

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning


Although your point about "resources" is well taken, your original statement of the relative costs was, "Mosquito costs a third the cost of a Lancaster". This didn't imply cost in resources. Your example, for instance, of the relative numbers of Merlin engines involved does not equate to 3:1. It is 2:1. I believe the ratio of 3:1 money-wise sounds reasonable, but, in terms of resources, such a statement is too simplistic.

Of course it's a broad estimate. But gun turrets, like engines, were complex technical devices which took a considerable amount of precision engineering to produce; a resource which could otherwise have been used for something more useful. Three of them went into a Lanc, none into a Mossie.

quote:There may have been a surplus of pilots turned out by Air Training Command, but there never was a surplus (or even a fully adequate number) of Mosquito Pathfinder and Light Night Striking Force (LNSF) crews.

Probably mainly because the RAF's priorities - against which Bennett was protesting - were for other types.

quote:Bennett's statement revisited: Just to provide balance, the following exageration was made by Sir Arthur "Bomber") Harris: "The Lancaster was the greatest single factor in winning the war." So, you see, foolish statements are often made on both sides of an issue by supposedly knowledgeable people. I'll disregard Harris's claim if you'll do the same with Bennett's.

Agreed. People do like to make such sweeping statements from their particular viewpoints. Objectively, the greatest single factor was, of course, the Red Army.

quote:I believe you really did get the point regarding the Mosquito-vs-Lancaster-overhead question. In keeping with your reply, I'd rather be fired at with a .22 cal rifle than a .300 magnum rifle any day. Yes, they both can kill, but which one would you rather face?

If you wish to pursue your original question, then I would have to amend it since we are comparing the actual situation (heavy bombers) with an hypothetical situation (a Mossie bomber force). In that case, for the same deployment of resources you get three Mossies overhead for each Lanc (total bombload 12,000 lbs) except of course in winter when the Mossies can make two trips each per night so you get six...so I'd rather have the single Lanc sent against me, especially as there was a better chance that it would be shot down en route.

quote:I believe your statement that the Mosquito's loss rate was only 1/10 that of the Lancaster was comparing the LNSF losses against the total number of Lancaster losses during the war. By the last six or seven months of the war in Europe, Bomber Commands losses of all types were down drastically.

In which circumstances, the Mossie's advantage would obviously have been reduced; after all, if the risk of being shot down was very low, it didn't really matter what you were flying. The tougher the opposition from defending fighters, the more the heavies' loss rates would rise compared with the Mossie's.

quote:And which bombers wrought more destruction over all during this period?

Again, you are missing the whole point of the argument: this is a 'what if', remember? Of course the heavies caused far more damage because historically there were far more of them. What we are discussing here is what might have been the outcome if BC focused on the Mossie instead.

quote:And lastly, since you brought up Erhard Milch's fear of increased use of Mosquitos by the British, why did he oppose increased development and production of the Mosquito-killing He 219 "Uhu" night fighter in favor of stepping up production of the Ju 88G to combat the heavy-bomber night raids?

Once more, because he was responding to the actual situation (lots of heavies) rather than the hypothetical one he feared (lots of Mossies). Had BC concentrated on Mossies, you can bet that the He 219 (or something similar) would have received top priority.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Kutscha]

The 'heavies' also were much more maintainance intensive than the Mossie.

Lighning,

swap the numbers for the 'heavies' and Mossies. Small number of 'heavies' for a large number of Mossies.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi wuzak,

quote:What would it matter to the Germans either way if the same level of ordinance was being dropped in a 24 hour period?

First of all, with more Lancasters, each carrying three times the bombload, it would be VERY unlikely for Mosquitos to take the same load to Berlin over less than a 12-hour period. Remember, these raids were carried out at night, so there were not 24 uninterupted hours in which to fly.

Secondly, the difference between a given number of bombs being dropped at one time as opposed to spreading out that same number over a lengthy time can be illustrated by comparing the effect of an artillery barrage with the effect of the same number of shells fired over a considerable interval. The latter not only has far less psychological effect, but it also allows time to repair and prepare.

Regards,
Lightning


Surely having a barrage in a contracted time period would allow more time between repairs, as once the barrage was over there would be several hours between that barrage and the next.

If the barrage was stretched out over a protracted period the citizens would have to leave their repair work each time the barrage returns.

[Lightning]

Per T. Williams: quote:...except of course in winter when the Mossies can make two trips each per night...

The two-trips-to-Berlin-in-one-night sorties by Mosquitos were very much the exception and not nearly the rule. In order for this to take place, conditions of wind and weather had to be ideal. There could be no delays of either sortie of any kind.

The performance of the aircraft itself had to be flawless. There could be no maintenance problems at all. The taxi-out, run-up, takeoff, and climb to altitude had to be like clockwork. The flight to Berlin could not be interfered with. No attacks by night fighters; no maneuvering to avoid anti-aircraft fire or searchlights; no navigational errors; no engine problems; etc.

The return trip had to be just as flawless. Approach, landing, taxi-in, and recovery to the maintenance area could not be held up in any way. Refueling and reloading of the 4000-pound bomb had to proceed without a hitch. Then the second sortie had to do the same thing all over again!

And remember, this type of operation could only be accomplished on the long nights of the northern European winter. As the nights were shorter with the onset of spring, through the summer, and well into fall, these operations became less possible, and in the summer, impossible.

To expect Mosquitos flying in numbers three times that of the Lancasters to be able to continuously carry out this type of campaign over an extended period of time is illogical optimism.

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

Can't see the 'heavies' doing one day turn arounds. It was between 2 and 3 days before they were ready for another mission.

Lightning, you are still stuck in that 'more 'heavies' than Mossies' rut. Look at the 'what if' with [u]at least</u> 4 Mossies for every 'heavy'.

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Per T. Williams: quote:...except of course in winter when the Mossies can make two trips each per night...
To expect Mosquitos flying in numbers three times that of the Lancasters to be able to continuously carry out this type of campaign over an extended period of time is illogical optimism.


It doesn't much matter - the 'two-trips' scenario is merely a bonus, turning a decisive advantage for the all-Mossie force into an overwhelming one.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Lightning]

Per Wuzak:

quote:Surely having a barrage in a contracted time period would allow more time between repairs, as once the barrage was over there would be several hours between that barrage and the next.
If the barrage was stretched out over a protracted period the citizens would have to leave their repair work each time the barrage returns.

Under a barrage of bombs/shells, there is no opportunity to evacuate people or move sensitive equipment. Everyone and everything is caught in-place and has to endure the whole of the destruction with no chance of escape from the area. All the damage is done at one time with no breaks during which to react and re-adjust. Spread the same number of bombs over a significant time period, and this is not the case.

Many bombs falling on an area all at the same time overwhelms fire-fighting crews, ambulance crews, emergency services, etc. It's easier to fight 100 fires over 24 hours than it is to fight 100 fires all at once. It's easier to evacuate 1000 wounded and treat them in emergency hospital facilities over 24 hours than it is to handle all 1000 injured people at the same time.

A greater number of bombers striking together overtaxes interceptors and anti-aircraft batteries.

The psychological effects of a barrage on both civilian and military personnel is far greater than if the same number of bombs/shells fall over a protracted time. "Shock and Awe" to use a recently coined phrase.

Some analogies:

A boxer who sustains a six-punch combination is more devastated than if the same six punches were absorbed over the course of a round.

An inch of rain falling in 20 minutes causes a flood. An inch of rain falling in 24 hours just gets things wet.

Five hundred cars crossing a bridge in one hour causes a traffic jam. Five hundred cars crossing the same bridge in a day is a normal traffic flow.



The point of all this, and to respond to your comment quoted above, is that in almost any situation, the concentration of adverse elements over a short period of time is more devastating than if they were spread out over a longer time. Or, in other words, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi all,

I agree that the Mosquito had several advantages going for it, but it also had some important limitations.

I think that one thing has been given far too much importance here: A 4000-pound bomb load, although impressive for a two-engined light bomber, is really not that awesome in its destructive power. Carrying a cookie, on those infrequent occassions when it could make two trips in one night, one Mosquito could drop 8000 pounds of bombs. A Lancaster could drop 14,000 pounds in one night, and it could do it on most nights of the year--not just in the dead of winter.

The cookie itself was not all that potent when compared to other 4000-pound bomb loads. It was a thin-cased blast bomb designed to make a lot of noise and to destroy buildinds and other structures at ground level. It had no real incendiary effect (although it could start fires) and no penetration of hard targets at all. And as far as its primary purpose of being a blast bomb is concerned, the 12,000-pound thin-cased bomb (not the "Tall Boy") carried by the Lancaster was far more destructive. And it should be remembered that the cookie raids were almost always referred to as "nuisance" and "spoof" raids by none other than Bomber Command itself.

There were several planes smaller than the Mosquito that could carry a 4000-pound bomb load (although not as far and at the same speed), and they could do it without dispensing with their armament. One was the P-38L; another was the F4U-4 (even though it saw almost no action in Europe). I believe some configurations of the B-25, B-26, and even the A-26 could as well. As the invasion brought the forward airfields ever closer to the targets in Germany, these aircraft could drop loads equivalent to those of the Mosquito.

The Mosquito was the best high-speed, high-altitude aircraft capable of carrying a cookie to Berlin, but that, in itself, was not a war-winning feat. If greater bomb loads consisting of various bomb types to be carried over longer ranges were needed, The choice between Mosquitos and Lancasters would not have to be made; the Mosquito would not be in the picture. And, of course, the B-29 was coming on to the scene in the Pacific, and if it had been needed in Europe, it was only a matter of time.

Regards,
Lightning

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi all,

...

And it should be remembered that the cookie raids were almost always referred to as "nuisance" and "spoof" raids by none other than Bomber Command itself.



1) 'nuisance' and 'spoof' were often to draw the heat from the 4-engines, late in the war they were quite serious raids in themselves.
2) Bomber Command (and Harris) were wedded to mass raids by 4-engined bombers. There was resistance to pinpoint raids and real targetting even when the RAF gained that capability (say post October 1944). Like WW I frontline infantry nothing could be allowed to compete with the heroic bomber crews (otherwise how could the carnage be justified?).

As a 'threat' to the 4-engines in theory (though not in practise) the Mosquitos were always going to be downplayed by Bomber Command.

The USAAF didn't like them being called 'light bombers' either as the Mosquito nominal load overlapped with the B17 practical load ...

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi all,

I agree that the Mosquito had several advantages going for it, but it also had some important limitations.

I think that one thing has been given far too much importance here: A 4000-pound bomb load, although impressive for a two-engined light bomber, is really not that awesome in its destructive power. Carrying a cookie, on those infrequent occassions when it could make two trips in one night, one Mosquito could drop 8000 pounds of bombs. A Lancaster could drop 14,000 pounds in one night, and it could do it on most nights of the year--not just in the dead of winter.

The cookie itself was not all that potent when compared to other 4000-pound bomb loads. It was a thin-cased blast bomb designed to make a lot of noise and to destroy buildinds and other structures at ground level. It had no real incendiary effect (although it could start fires) and no penetration of hard targets at all. And as far as its primary purpose of being a blast bomb is concerned, the 12,000-pound thin-cased bomb (not the "Tall Boy") carried by the Lancaster was far more destructive. And it should be remembered that the cookie raids were almost always referred to as "nuisance" and "spoof" raids by none other than Bomber Command itself.

There were several planes smaller than the Mosquito that could carry a 4000-pound bomb load (although not as far and at the same speed), and they could do it without dispensing with their armament. One was the P-38L; another was the F4U-4 (even though it saw almost no action in Europe). I believe some configurations of the B-25, B-26, and even the A-26 could as well. As the invasion brought the forward airfields ever closer to the targets in Germany, these aircraft could drop loads equivalent to those of the Mosquito.

The Mosquito was the best high-speed, high-altitude aircraft capable of carrying a cookie to Berlin, but that, in itself, was not a war-winning feat. If greater bomb loads consisting of various bomb types to be carried over longer ranges were needed, The choice between Mosquitos and Lancasters would not have to be made; the Mosquito would not be in the picture. And, of course, the B-29 was coming on to the scene in the Pacific, and if it had been needed in Europe, it was only a matter of time.

Regards,
Lightning


Of course planes like the Lancaster would have been required for specific targets, like U-boat pens.

My personal view on this is that the B17 would be the aircraft to have been substituted for the Mosquito, not the Lancaster. The normal bomb load for a Lanc was 10000lb. The normal load for a B17 was only 4000lb.

Now, if we wanted to take 4000lb of bombs to Berlin during daylight, from England in 1942/43 you could use the B17. Or you could use a Mosquito. The first "cookie" carrying Mosquitos were modified as such in 1943, but could have just as easily been done in 1942 (as the BIV was so modified, even with the least powerful Merlins that the Mosquito ever had).

And if Bomber Command was serious in using Mosquitos to deliver 4000lb of bombs to Berlin I'm sure more efforts would have been made to modify the bomb bay to enable slightly more variety of bomb load - such as a pair of 2000lb bombs.

With this new focus the bomber variant of the Mosquito would gain upgraded engines as soon as they were developed - in line with the Spitfires - rather than when they became available several months hence. The performance of the Mosquito would have been improved more quickly than it was.

As regards to the B25 and B26, yes they could carry 4000lbs of bombs. Yes they kept their turrets and defensive guns. Like they Mosquito they could carry their bombs internally. Their top speeds were at least 50mph down on the Mosquito's, and their cruise speed in the low 200s was roughly 100mph down, and slightly more than a B17s. It must be noted, too, that despite the B26's reputation as a widow maker it had the lowest loss rate of any American bomber of WW2 (in ETO). Not sure of the range of the Mitchell, but the Marauder could just carry its bombs to Berlin, and return.

Sure, the Lightning and Corsair could carry a heavy bomb load. But these stores were all external. Not sure about the Corsair, but the Lightning needed its hard points for fuel tankage if it was to get any sort of range. They too kept their guns (Mosquitos were never designed to have guns), but these were all in fixed positions. As good as not having any when carrying the bomb load precludes their effective use! Sure they could use them on the return trip. If they got that far.

From what I have been able to ascertain from limited research, the Lightning had a significantly lower cruise speed than the Mosquito. Carrying large bomb stores externally would doubtless lower this still further, and make the Lightning more like a sitting duck!

Mosquitos DID make bomb attacks deep inside Germany, on heavily defended targets, was able to evade interception to a large degree, and return with a very good survival rate.

To use the Mosquito as the main bomber (ie not exclusive) would have required a different mindset. There would have been significant changes to priorities in procurement of equipment, and development.

And the successful use of the Mosquito may have allowed the "Super Mosquito" and the Hawker equivalent more priority, and they may have actually come to fruition.

Also, no argument that the B29 was a significant advance over the bombers being used in Europe. It could carry two of the Tall Boy bombs, but had to externally! Also range dropped dramatically with bomb load!

[Wuzak]

Lightning,

I understand what you are saying about the concentration of bombing.

Not sure if I agree with it, or not.

[Wuzak]

As regards bombs....

Nout sure about the 12000lb thin case bomb, but the 8000lb thin case bomb carried by the Lancs was essentially two 4000lb "cookies" end to end. It had greater explosive potential than 2 4000lb "cookies" because it had more explosive in that 8000lb than the 2 x 4000lb bombs did.

The 4000lb "cookie" came in 2 versions - a regular and a thin case. Both had a higher proportion of explosive per weight than any combination of conventional bombs making up a similar 4000lb load. And thus had a greater explosive potential.

Also, as I understand it there were very few bombs designed to penetrate into the ground. In fact there were probably 2 - Grand Slam and Tall Boy!

Everything else would bury itself slightly in soft ground, but probably wouldn't on concrete. So you wouldn't lose anything there with "cookies". Also not that a lot of the bombs dropped by Lancs later in the war were the 8000lb thin case bombs. It would appear that they were unconcerned with penetrating the ground at that stage......

[Wuzak]

As one of the arguments against the use of the "cookie" is its inaccuracy, take a look at the statistics mentioned at the bottom of the following page:

http://www.ww2guide.com/bombs.shtml

If the statistics are correct, then the 8th Air Force rarely got their bombs within 1000ft of the target at which they were aimed!

Does anybody know of any accuracy numbers for "cookies" dropped by Mosquitos?

Also, note that after its introduction, the site states, the "cookie" became Bomber Command's "weapon of choice". It is doubtful that there would be much difference between the accuracy of a cookie droped from a Mossie, and the "same" bomb dropped by a Lanc.

Just to quote from the site:

quote:During the summer of 1944, 47 B-29s raided the Yawata steel works from bases in China; only one plane actually hit the target area, and with only one of its bombs. This single 500 lb general purpose bomb (which hit a powerhouse located 3,700 ft from the far more important coke houses that constituted the raid’s aiming point) represented one quarter of one per cent of the 376 bombs dropped over Yawata on that mission.

In the fall of 1944, only seven per cent of all bombs dropped by the Eighth Air Force hit within 1,000ft of their aim point; even a fighter-bomber in a 40 degree dive releasing a bomb at 7,000 ft could have a circular error (CEP) of as much as 1,000 ft. It took 108 B-17 bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 per cent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 by 500 ft area (a German power-generation plant.)

[Kutscha]

Interesting stats you posted Wuzak.

On Lightnings statement, the Germans had plenty of time to prepare for the appearance of the slow heavies over a target.

The Germans were very good at repairing bomb damage in a very short time. It is hard to make these repairs if bombs are falling over a continous period of time. To use his 24 hr rain example - it is hard to get dry if it is raining continually resulting in a cold and miserable person. The flood resulting from the Dam Busting raids had minimal effect on German production.

[DoBravery]

Just some issues I need help resolving.

If a B-17 travelling at 200+ mph at 20,000ft is so inaccurate, how is it so easy for the Mosquito going 400mph at 20,000 to put a tumbling Cookie in the pickle barrel?

If the Mosquito attacks lowerer, doesn't that make it easier for the Luft. to get into position?

It seems the Mossies low loss rates stemmed from its ability to vacate the target area before interceptors could respond. In a larger raid what happens to the following waves?

Personally I think the Mossie could have done the job, but I also feel the loss rates would be very different from what we're historically accustomed to. I know the Japanese had a very hard time with the B-29 due to its high altitude performance. That's just putting your planes where their speed is most advantageous. Just what we're talking about. My questions above are because I don't quite "buy" the historical loss rates and great accuracy.

I think the most important factors affecting a planes chances are:
1. Air Defense
2. Surprise
3. Escorts
4. Speed
5. Altitude
6. Def. Armament
7. Ruggedness

I feel the Mossie's speed gave it surprise and thus decreased losses. In a larger bombing mission, I don't think #2 would still be an asset.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

Just some issues I need help resolving.

If a B-17 travelling at 200+ mph at 20,000ft is so inaccurate, how is it so easy for the Mosquito going 400mph at 20,000 to put a tumbling Cookie in the pickle barrel?


Let me pose this question to you:

Given the historical inaccuracy of the 8th AF in hitting targets, would it really matter if "cookies" weren't aerodynamically designed and didn't fly dead straight?



quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

If the Mosquito attacks lowerer, doesn't that make it easier for the Luft. to get into position?

It seems the Mossies low loss rates stemmed from its ability to vacate the target area before interceptors could respond. In a larger raid what happens to the following waves?


That all depends on the Luftwaffe's early warning system, and how quickly they can respond.

Also, if the Luftwaffe are expecting a 20000ft attack, and the bombers change altitude at the last possible moment it would be possible that the defensive fighters would be completely out of position.

Again, it depends on the German radar abilities and their ability to respond.

For the following raids the fighters may be out of position after atempting to intercept the previous wave, or they may require to be refuelled after loitering for a period. It may be that the Germans do not commit as large an interception force, but use smaller numbers in a rotation off the ground. Whether this would make interception more difficult I don't know.


quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

Personally I think the Mossie could have done the job, but I also feel the loss rates would be very different from what we're historically accustomed to. I know the Japanese had a very hard time with the B-29 due to its high altitude performance. That's just putting your planes where their speed is most advantageous. Just what we're talking about. My questions above are because I don't quite "buy" the historical loss rates and great accuracy.

I think the most important factors affecting a planes chances are:
1. Air Defense
2. Surprise
3. Escorts
4. Speed
5. Altitude
6. Def. Armament
7. Ruggedness

I feel the Mossie's speed gave it surprise and thus decreased losses. In a larger bombing mission, I don't think #2 would still be an asset.


There is no doubt that they loss rates experienced by Mosquito crews would not remain the same if they were used as the primary strategic bomber. That said, I believe the loss rates would still be substantially less than for B17s or Lancs. Which is the point.

The Germans had far better high altitude fighters (by the end of the war) than did the Japanese. But high altitude/high speed interception was still difficult.

To go through your list:

1. Air Defense

Obviously the air defence would be simlar in either scenario. Maybe for Mosquito attacks the aircraft types used would be different. The anti aircraft guns would be the same. (I read the other day an account of a Mosquito navigator who said that they could see the AA fire on the ground, but it took over 5 minutes for theshells to reach their altitude!)


2. Surprise

Surprise depends on the German's ability to detect the attack. Large formations of large metal planes travelling slowly are easier for radar to detect than smaller numbers of small wooden planes travelling at twice the speed! I doubt that any heavy bomber raids in the latter half of the war held any significant surprise to the Germans. Certainly if the heavies could surprise the defences, a Mosquito raid definitely would.


3. Escorts

One of the premises of this hypothesis is that escort fighters would be used if and when they became available. Not too many fighter aircraft could fly to Berlin and back, and even fewer could do it at a similar cruise speed to the Mosquito! The diffcult issue wih escorts is are reduced numbers used for the more persistant smaller Mosquito bomb raids?


4. Speed

Obviously no contest!


5. Altitude

B17s, at least, were capable of similar, or higher, altitudes than Mosquitos. They did expeience difficulties at higher altitudes, both with the equipment and with crew discomfort. Extended periods of high altitude flying was not good for the crews.


6. Def. Armament

Mosquitos didn't have any, obviously. And the effectiveness of the defensive armament is questionable, to say the least!


7. Ruggedness

Perhaps the term used should be survivability. Both the B17 and the Lanc had good survivability given battle damage. The same could be said of the Mosquito. It too was capable of absorbing great punishment and returning to base.

[Mark J]

"but it took over 5 minutes for the shells to reach their altitude."

Surely you mean something like 5 to 15 seconds...not minutes..... :)

The German 88mm flak fired it's shell at over 3000 feet per second so a rough calculation puts the shell up at 20,000 feet in about 6 seconds but as those shells start loosing energy as soon as they leave the barrel, that height wouldn't be reached for at least double that time, 10 to 15 seconds.

sorry, strayed off topic.......

cheers

[Wuzak]

Oops, sorry! My mistake.

[Lightning]

Hi Wuzak et al,

As far as the comparative accuracy of the Cookie vs the finned, aerodynamic bomb is concerned, given proper aiming of both, if they are dropped side-by-side from high altitude at high speed (or any speed), the finned bomb bomb has a far better chance of hitting the target than the Cookie. This cannot be seriously disputed.

The inaccuracies in bombing that you cited were not the result of unpredictable bomb trajectories but rather poor bomb aiming. If Cookies had been dropped under the exact same conditions, the results would have been infinitely more erratic.

The 12,000lb thin-case bomb (not the Tall BOY) was a blast bomb like the Cookie, only three times more powerful and far more accurate in its flight.

The Mosquito raids we have been discussing were night raids, therefore I have been touting the Lancaster in comparison. The Lancaster was the finest heavy night bomber in the ETO. Had these raids been in daylight, I would have favored the B-17 and B-24 over the Mosquito in their ability to destroy the enemy cities an "hard" targets.

The speed advantage over the heavy bombers would have been of less importance in the face of the German high-performance day fighters. The anti-aircraft accuracy would have also been more of a problem in daylight.

Much criticism has been leveled at the ineffectiveness of the heavy bombers' defensive armament. On the other hand, how effective would the Mosquito's non-existent defensive armament have been against German interceptors? And, make no mistake about it, an unarmed Mosquito carrying a 4000lb bomb at 20,000ft would have been a sitting duck for any of the Luftwaffe's late-war day fighters. It couldn't outrun them; it couldn't outclimb them; it couldn't outmaneuver them, and it couldn't even shoot back. An interceptor on its tail would be in far less danger (actually in no danger) than than if it were on the tail of a Fortress or Liberator.

The B-17 and B-24 were better day bombers than the Lancaster. They certainly didn't have the bombload or range, but they could fly higher and faster,and they had far-more potent defensive armament.

As far as bombload and range were concerned, these planes had an adequate amount of each, and they easily exceeded the Mosquito in both. It seems that in this discussion, the bombloads of the U.S. heavies are always cited as being those of the earliest versions. If that is to be the case, then use the earlier versions of the Mosquito for the comparison.

The vastly increased bombloads of the heavies have already been cited earlier. Their ranges were also steadily increased throughout the war. When their load/range combinations are optimised, there is no way the Mosquito could carry an equal load as far. And when range became less of a factor as the front moved ever closer to Germany, the bombload of the heavies could be adjusted upwards accordingly. The B-17, for example, could carry 17,600lbs of bombsover shorter distances.

The specialized bomber version of Mosquito (the B XVI), however, was already overloaded to its limit of 4000lbs. This was after its landing gear and other structures had been redesigned to take the added load. It could carry no more, regardless of how short the range might be.

Also, a mention of the capabilities of the later versions of the daylight medium bombers is in order. The B-25 could carry 3200lbs internally and 2000lbs externally for a total of 5200lbs. It could also carry a 2000lb torpedo if needed. It had a speed of 275 mph and a range of 1350 miles, although not at full load.

The B-26 could carry 5200lbs: 4000lbs internally plus the rest externally. It could, and did, carry and launch 2000lb torpedos. It was a 283 mph airplane with range of 1150 miles.
.
The A-26B could carry 4000lbs internally and 2000lbs externally for a total of 6000lbs! The A-26C had an internal bombload of 4000lbs, a speed of 373 mph, and a 1400 mile range.

As with the heavy bombers, the mediums mentioned above retained all of their defensive armament. Also, as with the heavies, they would have needed fighter escort by day, but so would the Mosquito.

Earlier in this thread, I have given my reasons why I think the heavy night bombers could not have been replaced by the Mosquito. We are at an obvious impasse. I have not proven you (and others) wrong, but you have certainly not proven me wrong. Above, I have put forth my reasons why I don't believe the Mosquito could replace the daylight heavy bombers, or even match the bombing capabilities of the later medium bombers.

The Mosquito did things no other light bomber could do. It no doubt ventured into the realm of heavy-bomber operations, but could it have replaced the heavies or done their job better than they could? No way.

The Mosquito was a potent weapon among other potent weapons. It was, however, not the ultimate weapon, nor the superbomber that it has been herein depicted.

Regards,
Lightning

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning
The B-25 could carry 3200lbs internally and 2000lbs externally for a total of 5200lbs. It could also carry a 2000lb torpedo if needed. It had a speed of 275 mph and a range of 1350 miles, although not at full load.

The B-26 could carry 5200lbs: 4000lbs internally plus the rest externally. It could, and did, carry and launch 2000lb torpedos. It was a 283 mph airplane with range of 1150 miles.

The A-26B could carry 4000lbs internally and 2000lbs externally for a total of 6000lbs! The A-26C had an internal bombload of 4000lbs, a speed of 373 mph, and a 1400 mile range.




Do you have the max individual bomb size that could be carried by these aircraft?

[Kutscha]

Lightning, how many Mossies were intercepted and shot down by 262s which had a much superior speed over the high performance LW piston jobbies?

You still ignore the problems LW piston a/c had in intercepting bombers, whether the slow heavy or the fast Mossies. Most LW a/c had a ~1 hour endurance and ~1.5 hour endurance with drop tank at normal boost. To get in position to intercept Mossies they would have run at high boost with the resulting high fuel consuption. By the time they were in postion on a Mossie's 6, if they even managed to find and catch the Mossies, they would be running on fumes. Intercepting the slow heavies was an up, shoot, and then down.

quoting Tony Williams

Some quotes from 'Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45' - details on my website

"On combat operations, the American bombers in the ETO expended 26.3 million rounds of .50" ammunition in 1943, and 36.2 million in 1944; the wartime total was 72.3 million rounds. (In October 1943, the ammunition consumption reached a peak of 632,773 rounds per operational day.) That corresponds to nearly 12,000 rounds for every enemy aircraft claimed shot down by the bombers. Because, as we have seen above, these claims were often far higher than the actual German losses, a more realistic average would probably exceed 40,000 rounds for every destroyed German fighter. "

and:

"In comparison, the American fighters expended 26.6 million .50" rounds and 262,189 20 mm rounds, and claimed the destruction of 5222 enemy aircraft in the air and 4250 on the ground. That corresponds to 2810 rounds per enemy aircraft claimed as destroyed. Because the fighter claims were usually much closer to reality, a very rough but reasonable estimate would be that a fighter was ten times more efficient as a gunnery platform than a bomber."

and:

"Some commanders were quite sceptical about the effectiveness of this form of defensive armament. In April 1943 Colonel Claude E. Putnam, commander of the 306th BG, gave as his opinion that four gunners needed to fire simultaneously at an enemy fighter to have a 50% probability to bring it down. Worse, he estimated that to only one in ten of the gunners who theoretically had a firing opportunity actually opened fire. His colleague of the 308th BG, T.R. Milton, shared his doubts, and feared that the defensive guns were often more a hazard than a protection, because the danger of “friendly fire” in a dense formation was high."


The heavies never moved to the continent so their bombload was restricted for 'deep' penatrations of German airspace. I have yet to see you post what the typical load to Berlin was for the B-17. Afaik it was ~4000lb.

No one is saying the Mossies would not require escort, as has been mentioned before.

No one is saying the Mossie should completely replace the heavies, only that the ratio of heavies to Mossies should be reversed. So over 2000 Mossies and, maybe, 400 heavies. With that many Mossies flying round the clock the German defenses would be quickly exhausted unlike the heavies which gave the LW 2 or 3 days to recuperate. No time for the pilots to rest. No time to fix and do maintainance on a/c.

Those 2000+ Mossies could deliver 24,000,000+lb of bombs compared to 1,600,000lb by the 400 heavies over 3 days (typical turn around time for the heavies) to say Berlin.

You give speeds for bombless mediums.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Wuzak et al,

As far as the comparative accuracy of the Cookie vs the finned, aerodynamic bomb is concerned, given proper aiming of both, if they are dropped side-by-side from high altitude at high speed (or any speed), the finned bomb bomb has a far better chance of hitting the target than the Cookie. This cannot be seriously disputed.

The inaccuracies in bombing that you cited were not the result of unpredictable bomb trajectories but rather poor bomb aiming. If Cookies had been dropped under the exact same conditions, the results would have been infinitely more erratic.


Why does it matter how the bomb flies - if bomb aiming was historically so inaccurate?

Let me ask you this:

Do you think that a Mosquito bomber could have doubled the accuracy of the 8th Air Force using conventional 500lb bombs?

And if they could, that would mean they would get the same bomb tonnage on target using their ordinary 4 x 500lb (2000lb) load!

Because 4000lb wasn't ever the maximum load for a B17 in Europe. It was the normal, or average, load that they carried on operations.


quote:Originally posted by Lightning

The 12,000lb thin-case bomb (not the Tall BOY) was a blast bomb like the Cookie, only three times more powerful and far more accurate in its flight.


How so? Since it had the same barrel designe as the 4000 and 8000lb variants.

Note that Lancasters dropped the 4000lb cookie far more than the 12000 thin case bomb. They also dropped more of the 8000lb bombs than the 12000lb bomb.


quote:Originally posted by Lightning


Also, a mention of the capabilities of the later versions of the daylight medium bombers is in order. The B-25 could carry 3200lbs internally and 2000lbs externally for a total of 5200lbs. It could also carry a 2000lb torpedo if needed. It had a speed of 275 mph and a range of 1350 miles, although not at full load.

The B-26 could carry 5200lbs: 4000lbs internally plus the rest externally. It could, and did, carry and launch 2000lb torpedos. It was a 283 mph airplane with range of 1150 miles.
.
The A-26B could carry 4000lbs internally and 2000lbs externally for a total of 6000lbs! The A-26C had an internal bombload of 4000lbs, a speed of 373 mph, and a 1400 mile range.


This is something I tried to raise before. The US had these medium bombers which could do the normal job of the B17s and B24s, and do it at a higher speed. Not quite Mosquito speed, but well above those of the B17/B24. As Inoted before, the Marauder had the lowest combat losses of any US bomber in the ETO.


quote:Originally posted by Lightning


The Mosquito raids we have been discussing were night raids, therefore I have been touting the Lancaster in comparison. The Lancaster was the finest heavy night bomber in the ETO. Had these raids been in daylight, I would have favored the B-17 and B-24 over the Mosquito in their ability to destroy the enemy cities an "hard" targets.

The speed advantage over the heavy bombers would have been of less importance in the face of the German high-performance day fighters. The anti-aircraft accuracy would have also been more of a problem in daylight.

Much criticism has been leveled at the ineffectiveness of the heavy bombers' defensive armament. On the other hand, how effective would the Mosquito's non-existent defensive armament have been against German interceptors? And, make no mistake about it, an unarmed Mosquito carrying a 4000lb bomb at 20,000ft would have been a sitting duck for any of the Luftwaffe's late-war day fighters. It couldn't outrun them; it couldn't outclimb them; it couldn't outmaneuver them, and it couldn't even shoot back. An interceptor on its tail would be in far less danger (actually in no danger) than than if it were on the tail of a Fortress or Liberator.


If we are talking about the early versions of the Mosquito, we are also talking aboutthe earlier versions of the day fighters. Which DID have great difficulty in intercepting Mosquitos during daylight operations. Their speed differentials to a laden Mosquito were not that great. Getting on a Mosquito's tail and hunting it down would prove to be quite difficult. Head on attacks would also be very difficult.

As for flak, I cannot argue the accuracy of the German batteries, but would you not think that a smallish airplane will be harder to hit than a large airplane travelling at half the speed?

[Lightning]

Hi Wuzak et al,

Ok, ok, you've completely convinced me beyond any reasonable doubt!

Two thousand Mosquitos flying around the clock, carrying 4000lb bombloads at over 300 mph at high altitude, evading interceptors and accurate anti-aircraft fire, to deliver(without losses) EIGHT MILLION POUNDS per day for a three-day total of TWENTY FOUR MILLION pounds!!!

With this and all the other scenarios touting the mythical abilities of the aircraft, you've convinced me that the most over-rated airplane, not only of WWII, but of all time, is the DeHavilland Mosquito.

Respectful Regards,
Lightning

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Ok, ok, you've completely convinced me beyond any reasonable doubt!

Two thousand Mosquitos flying around the clock, carrying 4000lb bombloads at over 300 mph at high altitude, evading interceptors and accurate anti-aircraft fire, to deliver(without losses) EIGHT MILLION POUNDS per day for a three-day total of TWENTY FOUR MILLION pounds!!!

With this and all the other scenarios touting the mythical abilities of the aircraft, you've convinced me that the most over-rated airplane, not only of WWII, but of all time, is the DeHavilland Mosquito.

Lightning, I think you must be running out of arguments :)

Nobody has ever said that Mossies didn't suffer any losses. Nobody ever attributed mythical abilities to the Mossie. The simple fact, which you seem very unwilling to acknowledge, is that Mossies suffered much lower losses than the heavies, and that an all-Mossie force would therefore have delivered an equivalent bomb-load more cheaply than the heavies.

It was best summed up in the book 'Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45', in which my co-author Emmanuel Gustin wrote the following:

"Soon Mosquito bombers became a vital part of the night operations too. In early 1944 a bulged bomb bay was introduced to hold a 4000 lb ‘cookie,’ doubling the bomb load. The combat introduction of the high-altitude B.XVI version, which was even harder to intercept, was in March. A paper by the Ministry or Aircraft production calculated that, before the aircraft was lost, a Mosquito could be expected to drop an average of 1690 kg of bombs in 92 sorties. A Lancaster would drop 3370 kg on an average sortie, but survived on average only 28 sorties, and cost 2.8 times as much as a Mosquito. It could be concluded that the material cost per ton of bombs dropped was at least four times lower for the Mosquito than for the Lancaster. And the Mosquito had only one-fourth of the crew of the Lancaster, so its use also reduced the loss of life. Evidently, such figures are dependent on time, tactics, and circumstances, but they were nevertheless evidence that the Mosquito had advantages that had to be exploited. The “Light Night Strike Force” became an important part of Bomber Command’s No.8 Group; its operations included 170 attacks on Berlin."

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Kutscha]

Lightning,

what is so unbelievable about 2000+ Mossies? The Americans in Oct 44 deployed just over 5000 heavies and almost 1400 mediums vs Germany. I could easily have said 3-4-5000 Mossies to bring the numbers more into line with the 'less heavy/more Mossie' ratio.

Sure there would be losses, but it was only an example of the tonnage differential that could be delivered. You think the heavies would not suffer any losses either? You are nitpicking.

Your sarcasm has been noted.

[simon]

Gentlemen, whilst I appreciate that there are two distinct and separate viewpoints in what has become a highly spirited, interesting and so far fairly friendly debate, things appear to be getting a little frosty, please leave personal comments out of your posts.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by simon

Gentlemen, whilst I appreciate that there are two distinct and separate viewpoints in what has become a highly spirited, interesting and so far fairly friendly debate, things appear to be getting a little frosty, please leave personal comments out of your posts.


mhh - seems to be just as controversial here as on the Tanks in WW2 board.

:)

[PMN1]

What if the Hawker P1005 High Speed Bomber had been built in place of the A-26 Invader and had replaced the B25 Mitchell and B26 Marauder?

Or the Gloster Reaper had replaced the Lightning?

[:p]:D

[Wuzak]

A quick scan of the details of the A26 suggested that its top speed was reached at sea level!!!!

No mention of altitude performance.

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Sarcasm, when directed at the discussion in general, is not the same as a personal attack. (For what reason do you think that I signed that posting, "Respectful regards"?) I have not attacked anyone in these forums (if that's what you're implying), and it would take considerable provocation for me to do so.

I also think that if you go back over the comments made by the various posters to this thread, you'll find that there are several examples of sarcasm that preceded mine (without having been "noted").

This is neither to justify nor apologize for my posting. Simon referred to this as a "highly spirited...debate", and on this I agree. As to his reference to "personal comments", I'll leave that up to each of us to decide to what he was alluding.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky,

When you titled this thread "Controversial Topic", you were inspired!

Regards,
Lightning

[pmjwright]

Interesting side note--I just read "Terror in the Starboard Seat" about a Mossie navigator in 418 RCAF sq. Anyways, back in 1944 when he was told that a Lanc could only carry 4000 lb to Berlin (I think that's not accurate), he mused: why not just use Mossies and do away with the Lancs? Here we are 60 years later with the same thoughts (and counter-thoughts)...

With the advantage of hindsight (and also considering that the Mossie's service history matches closely enough to the Lanc and Halibag, the RAF could have made the choice in philosophy of fast medium bomber vs heavy bomber right at the beginning of these aircraft's service), I think it's a plausible idea for RAF Bomber Command to have largely replaced the heavies with Mossies, saved considerable resources and achieved similar results. You would only need at most a 2:1 replacement of aircraft to achieve this. Here's how and why:

The "advantages" of a Lanc's (or a B-17) 17,000+ lb load doesn't matter, because they couldn't carry anywhere near these loads to German cities. Five to eight thousand lb was the norm. That's only one to two Mossie loads.

I recall reading (was it earlier in this thread?) that around 90% of cookies dropped by Bomber Command were the 4000 lb size. As we know, the mossie could carry the standard one. So, really, the big cookies didn't matter.

Mechanical availability--others have pointed out the difficulty in sustaining the heavies after ops. Meanwhile the Mossies could and did operate nightly--during the Berlin Express, iirc mossies flew 43 consecutive nights to Berlin. It was possible (and done) to fly two ops to Berlin in a night, but that's not a realistic scenario in an overall campaign.

Resources: that has been well covered in this thread. But not only does the mossie represent less man-hours per aircraft, it also represents largely a different class of labourer (wood vs metal). There must be some advantage in substituting an under-utilized workforce for an over-taxed workforce.

Another statistic on resources: Over 55,000 Bomber command crews lost their lives during the war. Replace the heavies with swifter and smaller (harder to intercept or hit with flak), two-crew aircraft, and you would have substantially reduced the attrition rate. You could have knocked a zero off that casualty number. And that means less aircraft needed in the long run.

Defensive armament--how many night fighters did Bomber Command's heavies shoot down? Hardly worth the extra weight/drag/crews. The mossie's defensive armament was its difficulty to intercept. Far more effective.

Accuracy doesn't matter, Bomber Command's vision was the simple blasting of German cities. For this, the cookies were quite effective. (Of course, late in the war they "rediscovered" precision bombing and also daylight bombing to some extent, and the mossie was very capable of making precision bombing ops in day or night with low losses, but that's another topic).

OK, on the other hand, you need more than cookies for effective bombing campaign, you need penetrating HE and incendiary. Here, the mossie had a big limitation in its bomb load (2000 lb or so). The aircraft is capable of carrying the cookie, it should be able to carry 4000 lb of the others. So, you would need to modify the bomb bay to make that happen.

Lancs normally carried a mixed load of bombs, with the idea of having the blast bombs open up buildings for the incendiaries. The mossie couldn't, so you would spread the bomb types among the aircraft in a formation. While that would appear to be a disadvantage, the three types of bombs have much different flight trajectories, so the mixed loads weren't the advantage they appeared to be.

You would still need a heavy bomber force (in the hundreds) to perform the tallboy/earthquake ops, carry the few heavy cookies etc.

So, thinking realistically, a force comprised largely of mossies could have carried on the night bomber campaign in place of the heavies, with similar outcomes and with substantial savings in material and manpower.

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Kutscha,

Sarcasm, when directed at the discussion in general, is not the same as a personal attack. (For what reason do you think that I signed that posting, "Respectful regards"?) I have not attacked anyone in these forums (if that's what you're implying), and it would take considerable provocation for me to do so.


Never took it as a personal attack but an 'attack' on the Mossie.[8D]

[Lightning]

Per T. Williams:

quote:Lightning, I think you must be running out of arguments

No, Tony, I haven't run out of arguments, but I might ask you the same question. You and several other posters who share your oppinion on this matter have submitted multiple postings rendering, for all practical purposes, the same arguments in favor of your position over and over again. In a like manner, I have responded to these redundant arguments with similar (read redundant) counterpoints.

Your arguments (and those of the others) have been well thought out and have been well presented, but repeating them over and over makes them neither more nor less true. By the same token, my counter-arguments (which I firmly believe to have been equally well thought out and presented) gain neither more nor less validity through constant repetition.


As in all discussions such as this, neither side can prove the other wrong. We can only present our best arguments , pro and con, and let others make up their own minds as to the validity of those contentions.

It's obvious that a stalemate has been reached here. I think any continuation should only be undertaken if something really new can be tabled. Otherwise, we are only wasting the time of (and quite possibly boring) the other forum members who could be making interesting postings of their own rather than reading this repetitious material.

Regards,
Lightning

[PMN1]

quote:
It's obvious that a stalemate has been reached here.



All quiet above the Western Front....

:D

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning
It's obvious that a stalemate has been reached here.

Now why am I reminded of that Monty Python film about the Holy Grail, in which an aggressive knight attacks the hero and refuses to given in despite repeated injuries until he finally has both legs and both arms chopped off, at which point he says 'Shall we call it a draw, then?' :D

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Lightning]

Hi T. Williams,

I have not the slightest idea because in this ongoing thread, the self-proclaimed "hero'" has lost as many limbs as the "aggressive Knight" (or perhaps a few more). ;)

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi T. Williams,

I have not the slightest idea because in this ongoing thread, the self-proclaimed "hero'" has lost as many limbs as the "aggressive Knight" (or perhaps a few more). ;)

Ah, but the "aggressive Knight" is very shortsighted as well as being blessed with tunnel vision. The 'hero' has one arm behind his back and is fighting on his knees so it looks like the 'hero' has lost limbs.[:p]

The "aggressive Knight" has not landed any blows that would de-limb the 'hero'.

[Ricky]

Well, the title seemed obvious, and boy was it true!

Ok, a few points to pick up.

The accuracy of the 4,000lb bomb. So what? Name me a heavy bomber raid (aside from a few 617 squadron-type efforts) that attacked a target needing pin-point accuracy? Basic targets were oil-fields, factory/manufacturing complexes, and urban areas. All were area-bombed by the heavies (different methods were used, but that is what the result amounted to). Stick a decent bombsight in the lead Mossie, have the formation bomb together (as the USAAF did) and you get a target smothered in bombs.

The 8,000lb & 12,000lb 'cookie' - was rarely used.

The need to have incendiaries etc - already covered. some Mossies carry cookies, some carry boxes of incendiaries. And that mix was the typical mix used by BC. For the USAAF, well, they used SAP bombs on factories with very little effect on production. Maybe an incendiary mixture to burn the factory down would have been an improvement?

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Nice try, but not very effective. Knowing you, I believe you can do better.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky,

A few general comments regarding area- vs precision-bombing:

First of all, Berlin (or any other city) at night was not the only, nor the most important, enemy target of the war. Dumping loads of H.E. and incendiary bombs haphazardly in the dark over residential sections of a city did serve a purpose in that the morale of the civilian population was lowered, and the soldiers in the field were psychologicaly affected by concern for their homes and families. The actual damage to the war machine was not that significant. For these raids, accuracy was not that important--tonnage was.

Bombing attacks against high-priority military and industrial targets were another matter. Against these, ordnance had to be of the appropriate type and could not be squandered. Whereas a bomb could be 500 yards off target in a "terror" raid and still accomplish the mission, such a miss in the case of a precision attack on a small-but-important target would be the waste of a valuable weapon and would do nothing to accomplish the mission.

What type of targets required bombing accuracy and were more vital to the Axis war effort than Berlin and the other enemy cities? Sub pens; underground complexes-both military and industrial; reinforced V-1 and V-2 launching sites; bunkers; factories; bridges; dams; ships (e.g. Tirpits); etc; etc; These targets could not be destroyed by dispersed patterns of H.E. blast bombs or incendiaries. They required accuracy and, in many cases, penetration.

In an industrial complex, for instance, a power station has priority over a warehouse. In a railroad marshaling yard, a roundhouse is more important than an area of track sections. A bridge is far more vital than the road leading up to it. Why waste bombs on office buildings when docks and loading areas are 500 yards away? What's more important on an air field; the runways? the taxiways? the hangars? Take your pick (and that's just what the targeting people do), but you can't hit them all with the same effectiveness with which you can hit one. It's here where you need the accuracy of precision bombing.

Pickle-barrel accuracy? No. That was never really achieved. But bombs dropped with the state-of-the-art bombsights available in WWII were far more accurate than those dropped over an approximate area. And sticks of bombs were more concentrated on their targets than single bombs dropped from individual bombers.

Before you start advancing statistics, theories, policies, and strategies (failed or otherwise), first please answer this question: Is what I've said here true?

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

Just have to post some stats.:)

In the fall of 1944, only seven per cent of all bombs dropped by the Eighth Air Force hit within 1,000ft of their aim point; even a fighter-bomber in a 40 degree dive releasing a bomb at 7,000 ft could have a circular error (CEP) of as much as 1,000 ft. It took 108 B-17 bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 per cent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 by 500 ft area (a German power-generation plant.)

from http://www.ww2guide.com/bombs.shtml which also includes a nice table.

[Ricky]

Hi Lightning.

Well... it is true but slanted.

First off, sub pens, underground & reinforced sites & dams required very large and/or very specialised bombs. As did capital ships (Tirpitz).
Factories were normally targetted by SAP bombs, as I said before, but it turns out that this was pretty ineffective unless a bomb actually scored a direct hit on a hunk of machinery. Would it be more effective to simply burn the factory down?
Bridges were a target for tactical bombers, not stategic heavies.

Targetting - the USAAF heavy bomber raids would essentially release their bombs all in a cluster so that the area of (and around) the target would be saturated in bombs, all in one go. Why would this change when using Mossies?

[Kutscha]

Typical USAAF bomber formation for late 42/early 43

http://www.bkbhq.com/users/race/Air%20Force/Escorting_files/image009.jpg

Later formations were 1500' wide with a/c in different positions.

[Tony Williams]

The fact is that the strategic bombing carried out by both the RAF and the USAAF was against essentially area targets; they did not aim at particular buildings (except, perhaps, that a prominent one in the centre of the target might provide an aiming mark to ensure that the area around was devastated). It is worth noting that in the last nine months of the war, the weather was too bad for visual bombing for much of the time, so the USAAF's bombers actually bombed using radar for 70% of their missions. And radar bombing was (very much) area bombing. It really didn't matter whether you were using Lancasters, Fortresses or Mossies as bomb trucks - the accuracy would have been the same.

The following story is one I have told a couple of times on the web: Lightning might suspect that I've made it up for this occasion but I can assure you it is true. When I was a teenage schoolboy (long, long ago) my French teacher, who had friends in northern France who he regularly visited, told us of an event in 1944 which had become a part of their local history. There was a bridge close to his friends' village which the Allies decided to cut on or around D-day to prevent German reinforcements from reaching the coast. So a fleet of heavy bombers appeared at some altitude to bomb the bridge. They devastated the area for half a mile around but missed the bridge. So the next day an even bigger fleet appeared and devastated the area for a mile around but still missed the bridge. So on the third day a single Mosquito appeared 'on the deck', dropped one bomb, and took out the bridge. That's the difference between strategic and tactical bombing. The Mossie, of course, could do whichever was required.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Wuzak]

The significance of the bomber formation posted by Kutscha is twofold. Firstly it is doubtful that they ever broke from that formation to form a single file stream to the target (which would be required for a "precision" target). They bombed from where they were.

Secondly, the Eighth Air Force used a tactic to (attempt to) overcome their bombing accuracy where the lead plane would have the most experienced and/or skilled bombing crew. It was their task to "accurately" hit the target. The rest of teh formation dropped their bombs on cue.

Lets also consider the "sticks of bombs". If a B17 was flying at 180mph (normal speed for B17 in formation), and there was a half second between each bomb being released (first one has fallen about a metre when second is released), then if the first one is on target the second is 40 metres off target (132 feet), the third is 80 metres (264 feet) off target, and so on and so forth. if there are 10 bombs in a "stick", then the last would be 362m (1188ft) off target!

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Tony Williams

...So a fleet of heavy bombers appeared at some altitude to bomb the bridge. They devastated the area for half a mile around but missed the bridge. So the next day an even bigger fleet appeared and devastated the area for a mile around but still missed the bridge. So on the third day a single Mosquito appeared 'on the deck', dropped one bomb, and took out the bridge. That's the difference between strategic and tactical bombing. The Mossie, of course, could do whichever was required.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk



I'll bet they (town folk) made an usumption that the bridge was the primary target. I suspect otherwise. I don't see strategic bombers being slated for bridge removal unless it was a hoped to be destroyed from collateral damage.

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

Lets also consider the "sticks of bombs". If a B17 was flying at 180mph (normal speed for B17 in formation), and there was a half second between each bomb being released (first one has fallen about a metre when second is released), then if the first one is on target the second is 40 metres off target (132 feet), the third is 80 metres (264 feet) off target, and so on and so forth. if there are 10 bombs in a "stick", then the last would be 362m (1188ft) off target!

I always thought that they dropped so that the 'stick' straddled the target, with the middle bombs hitting the intended aiming point.
I got this impression from looking at after-raid recon photos, where you can see a line of craters running across the target.

Although simply dropping the full set in one go has always seemed (in theory in my head;)) like a much better option. Provided you are accurate.

That is interesting - was the 'stick' method of dropping an actual deliberately developed tactic to maximise your chance of hitting target etc, or did it simply arise from using bombers (taking the B-17 only as an example here) which could not release everything in one go because they were stacked up inside the plane?

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky


I always thought that they dropped so that the 'stick' straddled the target, with the middle bombs hitting the intended aiming point.
I got this impression from looking at after-raid recon photos, where you can see a line of craters running across the target.

Although simply dropping the full set in one go has always seemed (in theory in my head;)) like a much better option. Provided you are accurate.

That is interesting - was the 'stick' method of dropping an actual deliberately developed tactic to maximise your chance of hitting target etc, or did it simply arise from using bombers (taking the B-17 only as an example here) which could not release everything in one go because they were stacked up inside the plane?


I think that it wasn't feasible to drop all the bombs in one go.

As for teh other, you are probably right. So basically most still missed, but a few might have hit!

[Lightning]

Hi all,

First, a comment. I do not think any of the members of these forums (in this, or any other, thread) have ever made-up a story or delibrately made false statements to gain advantage in a discussion. We have all made mistakes, and, on occasion, quoted unreliable sources, but that's a different matter. Also, when that has occurred, I notice that, upon realization, the mistaken party has corrected himself. I have done it; you have done it.

Now to the discussion at hand. Ricky states that sub pens, underground
and reinforced sites, etc. require large, specialized bombs. They obviously also require precision bombing that presupposes a precision bombsight. Since these targets were actually destroyed during the war, the feasibility and achievability of precision bombing has been demonstrated. Your statement, Ricky, proves my point: the Mosquito, although it could carry a Norden-type bombsight, could not accomplish this mission because of its limmited (both in weight and in size) bomb load. The heavy bombers could and did.

Tony tells the story of two fleets of heavy bombers attacking a bridge on two successive days without success. Ricky states that "bridges were a target for tactical bombers, not strategic heavies." From my own readings, I know that large dikes at war's end were strategic targets destroyed by precision bombing by heavy bombers using large "earthquake" type bombs (again, precision bombing by heavies using bombs that the Mosquito could never carry). This goes on and on and...

Once more, statistics have been brought into the discussion. A few words on the value of statistics in winning/losing an argument. How many times have we all become saturated with statistics being used to determine the outcome of a football or baseball game, an election, the performance of the stock market, the weather?

I remember(sadly) that, in 1969, statistics indicated that the Baltimore Colts would win the Superbowl by a whopping 17 points. The New York Jets won the game.

In 1948, statistics predicted that Thomas Dewey would handily defeat Franklin D. Roosefelt (* Edit: HARRY S. TRUMAN DEFEATED THOMAS DEWEY FOR THE U.S. PRESIDENCY IN 1948--I'm so ashamed! End Edit *) for the U.S. presidency. One leading newspaper even printed up its next-day edition with the headline declaring Dewey the winner. Dewy lost.

Betting on the horses? Need I elaborate?

Super computers, using sophisticated weather models based upon years of statistical data, tell us that the weekend will be sunny and warm. Then, our parade gets rained on, or we sit wet and cold around our picnic blanket.

To quote a well-known expression, "Statistics are for losers."

There are too many unforseens, unknowns, unanticipateds, and, probably most significant of all, intangibles present in any argument to allow statistics to proove the point one way or the other.

Tony and Kutscha can refer to Monty Python if they like. Others can quote statistics if it makes them feel more secure in their positions. But, as I have already said, neither they nor I am bringing anything new to the table by repeating the same points/counterpoints ad infinitum.

Regards,
Lightning

[Tony Williams]

I agree with you Lightning that we're going round in circles on this one. However, I have to pick you up on one point: there is one heck of a difference between statistics which record what has happened, and using those statistics for predictive purposes. Your criticism is aimed at the latter, and I don't disagree with you at all (one of the wonders of the modern age is the way in which weather forecasters on TV predict the weather with sublime confidence, completely ignoring the fact that they got it all wrong the day before).

However, when an official British report states that heavies last an average of 28 missions and Mossies 92, and that taking average payload and build costs into account it can be calculated that Mossies are at least four times as cost effective as heavies in delivering a given tonnage of bombs, that isn't prediction, that's historical fact.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi all,
Ricky states that sub pens, underground
and reinforced sites, etc. require large, specialized bombs. They obviously also require precision bombing that presupposes a precision bombsight. Since these targets were actually destroyed during the war, the feasibility and achievability of precision bombing has been demonstrated. Your statement, Ricky, proves my point: the Mosquito, although it could carry a Norden-type bombsight, could not accomplish this mission because of its limmited (both in weight and in size) bomb load. The heavy bombers could and did.


Most B17s carried a Norden bomb site. Most B17s had appalling bombing accuracy.

Alos, there was only one bomber (active in the ETO) that was capable of carrying the bombs required for deep penetration of fortified targets. The other heavies (B17, B24, Halifax, Stirling) were incapable of carrying these bombs for one or other, or both, of the reasons that the Mosquito couldn't carry them.

The use of these bombs required precision. But I'm not sure if the Norden was even used by the British to do that.

And the crews that carried out these bombing missions were the elite. The best bomber crews in bomber command, with extra specialist training for their tasks.

Whilst these raids were effective in incapacitating key areas of enemy activities, in terms of mission numbers and tonnage dropped these represent a very small proportion.

[Wuzak]

Since we have met a stalemate in this discussion, I propose that we take a look from each other's perspective.

We should do a "for and against" list. Those who support the theroy should compose a list of the "fors" for the use of the heavy bombers and an "against" list for the Mosquito.

Those who don't support the theory should do vice versa.

[ickysdad]

Lightning,

It was Harry Truman verse Dewey in 1948!!!! FDR died in 1945!!!
On statistics I think we have to be careful because all weapon systems react in some way with one another and if you change or remove one or the other you may come to a totally different result!!!!

[Kutscha]

Again Lightning forgets, at least in my case, that NOT ALL of the heavies would be replaced by Mossies. There was a need for 'special' heavy lift capacity and the Lanc was the only a/c that really could do that with a descent range.

[Ricky]

Hi Lightning,

I reckon that I have been wrong more often than most, but I'm always happy to be corrected.:)

However...

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Now to the discussion at hand. Ricky states that sub pens, underground and reinforced sites, etc. require large, specialized bombs. They obviously also require precision bombing that presupposes a precision bombsight. Since these targets were actually destroyed during the war, the feasibility and achievability of precision bombing has been demonstrated. Your statement, Ricky, proves my point: the Mosquito, although it could carry a Norden-type bombsight, could not accomplish this mission because of its limmited (both in weight and in size) bomb load. The heavy bombers could and did.
Yes, they did. But this is not really relevant, as:
quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

NOT ALL of the heavies would be replaced by Mossies. There was a need for 'special' heavy lift capacity and the Lanc was the only a/c that really could do that with a decent range.

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Ricky states that "bridges were a target for tactical bombers, not strategic heavies." From my own readings, I know that large dikes at war's end were strategic targets destroyed by precision bombing by heavy bombers using large "earthquake" type bombs (again, precision bombing by heavies using bombs that the Mosquito could never carry). This goes on and on and...
A dike is not a bridge. A dike is a large (usually earth) bank acting as a dam - much used in the Netherlands to keep the sea out. It would need an earthquake bomb.

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Once more, statistics have been brought into the discussion.
To quote a well-known expression, "Statistics are for losers."

Never heard it;), but I can see the point. Statistics can be twisted any which way and are often irrelevant anyway.
But they can also be a useful guide, if you don't put too much weight on them.

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

But, as I have already said, neither they nor I am bringing anything new to the table by repeating the same points/counterpoints ad infinitum.

So, can I do a summary?

Pro:

Mosquitoes would be harder to intercept, leading to less losses.
They can reach most of the targets that the heavies can reach, with (in some cases) a comparable bombload, but certainly a useful bombload.

Con:

Mosquitoes cannot carry quite the range of bombs that heavies can.
You would need LOTS of Mosquitoes to make up for the heavies.

Is that about right, or has my bias slanted it?

[Lightning]

Hi ickysdad,

I could laugh at myself if I wasn't so embarrassed! Of course it was Truman--not FDR--that beat Dewey. Please believe me when I tell you that I really knew that. I had WWII on the brain, and, even though Truman was president from April '45, WWII and FDR sort of go hand-in-hand.

Thanks for calling my attention to such a glaring faux pas. At least this way I can go back and correct it by editing (which I will do forthwith).[B)]

Regards,
Lightning

[ickysdad]

Lightning,
I kind of agree with both sides here but I'm one of those that believes you have to be careful changing things as far as history goes and that if you change one thing or two you get a totally different result which is not always the case. Like this thread if we change the bombing campaign from all 4 engined jobs to all Mosquitos(or mostly so anyways) ,I myself don't think you automatically the same loss ratios as per historical or that changing different production regimes would be a simple matter. As far as speed is concerned that would make it far harder to intercept a bomber but defensive armament comes into play also because according to both Luftwaffe & USAAF reords(and combining thereof) about 9,000 Luftwaffe fighters were shot down by USAAF bombers in WW2. However I'm no expert so????????

[Wuzak]

Strengths of the Heavy Bombers (vs Mosquito).
1. Have a larger lifting capacity than the Mosquito, and have a more spacious bomb bay for a bigger variety of stores. This strength varies between the bombers. For example, the B17 could not carry overly long bombs, and could only carry a limited number of smaller bombs (due to spce considerations). The Lancaster is the king of big boms, and variety of stores being equipped with everything from incendiaries, 250lb, 500lb, etc GP bombs, 4000, 8000 and 12000lb "cookies", plus the Tall Boy and Grand Slam deep penetration bombs.

2. Range. Most heavy bombers had a slightly larger effective range than the bomber Mosquitos. I believe that the Liberator was the best in this regard, being used for missions where the other heavies could not reach.

3. Can shoot back! All heavy bombers of WW2 were equipped, to varying degrees, with defensive armaments. The effectiveness of these is debatable.

4. Back up pilot. Not applicable to all heavies, as some only carried one pilot. Those which carried two pilots had the backup if something went awry with the first pilot.

Cons:
1. Slow slow slow! Whilst some of the heavies had top speeds that were none too shabby, when flying at cruise speed they were going very slow, particularly when flying withing large formations. Heavies not in formation were basically sitting ducks.

2. Accuracy. Bomber Command gave up precision bombing at night, save for a few highly trained elite squadrons. The record of the Eighth Air Force has been widely discussed here. Accuracy was not their middle name (even with the highly advanced Norden bomb sight)!

3. Bomb Capacity. Whilst the ability to carry larger bomb loads than Mosquitos is counted as a plus, the inability or unwillingness to use that capacity is a negative. This is particularly true of the American heavy bombers, which averaged around 4000lb of bombs per mission!

4. Evasiveness. Heavy bombers lacked the agility and/or speed to evade enemy aircraft,loaded or empty. Whilst the Mosquito didn't have the agility of a single seat fighter, it had other options.

[Lightning]

Per Ricky quote:A dike is not a bridge. A dike is a large (usually earth) bank acting as a dam - much used in the Netherlands to keep the sea out. It would need an earthquake bomb.

My point here was (1) A dike, like a bridge, is not an area target and therefore requires accurate aiming. (2) Such a target requires a bomb of such a size and weight that a Mosquito could carry neither.

As to the "Statistics are for losers" expression, it is a well-known saying in American sports. It ranks with such phrases as "Monday-morning quarterback." It means that, no matter how you apply statistics, the game has to be played before the winner can be determined.

Ricky, your summary is somewhat abbreviated, but it's not bad. I'm not in complete agreement detail-wise, but, in essence, I think you're on the right track.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Tony,

The main reason I question the pertinent statistics regarding the Lancaster vs the Mosquito is that they were compiled over varying time frames and under quite different and changing conditions.

The Lancaster bombed the enemy from the beginning of the heavy-bombing campaign to the end. It faced a Luftwaffe that, at first, was a contender for the title of world's best air force, and at last, was a decimated, defeated force that could only put up token resistance in planes flown by hardly-trained pilots. (It was not the number of planes that they had but the number that they could fly.) After all, on D-Day, almost a full year before the German surrender, the Luftwaffe could only put up less than five planes to defend the beaches of Fortress Europe!

The Mosquito, on the other hand (at least in the strategic-bombing role) was mostly used during the decline of Germany's ability to defend herself. There were raids by some earlier marks, but in no way on a large scale. The Mk B XVI was the only version to really fulfill the Mosquito's strategic-bombing potential, and it was a relative late comer.

In the last months of the war, the losses of Lancasters and Mosquitos alike were very low--around .75 % I believe. This period was a much larger portion of the Mk BXVI's overall employment than it was of the Lancaster's.

Unless both aircraft flew side-by-side, in like numbers, against the same quality of opposition, over the same period of time, I believe that a true statistical comparison of the two types cannot be validly made.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi ickysdad,

I agree with your comment about the effects of changing history. I had not thought of it in that way before, but it is very insightful.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Wuzak,

I like your idea of posting the pros/cons of the contenders. The library where I use the computer is about to close in five minutes, so I'll have to get back near the first of next week.

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

The main reason I question the pertinent statistics regarding the Lancaster vs the Mosquito is that they were compiled over varying time frames and under quite different and changing conditions.

The Lancaster bombed the enemy from the beginning of the heavy-bombing campaign to the end. It faced a Luftwaffe that, at first, was a contender for the title of world's best air force, and at last, was a decimated, defeated force that could only put up token resistance in planes flown by hardly-trained pilots. (It was not the number of planes that they had but the number that they could fly.) After all, on D-Day, almost a full year before the German surrender, the Luftwaffe could only put up less than five planes to defend the beaches of Fortress Europe!

The stats were? The first bomb mission of the Lanc was flown within a a couple of months of the first Mossie bomb mission &gt; March 1942/May 1942.

The prototype Mossie, a B, flew over a month before the prototype Lanc. Not the Mossie's fault that there was a lack of forsight by those at the top. [:p]

The LW NF force grew in strength as the war progressed so to say the Mossie did not face the same perils as the Lanc is false.

The LW flew several hundred sorties on D-day against the landing. Only 2 190s overflew the beaches though.

[Wuzak]

The Lancaster flew almost exclusively during the night, Bomber Command having quickly abandoned daylight raids by the heavies.

Mosquitos, on the otherchand, were used both day and night for the duration of the war.

And whilst you can point to the fact that no large Mosquito formations were used to bomb the enemy, which would lead to the inevitable increased loss rates, it must be acknowledged that a greater proportion of Mosquito raids were higher risk than the raids by the heavy bombers (by that I don't mean that they went to more heavily defended targets, but that they had to use high risk tactics to achieve their goals).

btw, the discussion seems to have headed towards Mossie vs Lanc, bombing at night. My personal feeling is that the Mossie could have been as effective, if not more so, than the B17 and B24s being flown during the day.

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

btw, the discussion seems to have headed towards Mossie vs Lanc, bombing at night. My personal feeling is that the Mossie could have been as effective, if not more so, than the B17 and B24s being flown during the day.


That's an interesting issue, and much more debatable as it was never tried. However, the same logic applies: a fast aircraft is inherently more difficult to intercept than a slow one as it provides a smaller 'window of opportunity' for the interceptors.

Of course, different tactics could have been used. There would have been no need to fly in large formations, as the need for that was primarily dictated by the need for overlapping fire from the defensive armament of the B-17s and B-24s. Therefore there would have been some merit in 'swarm' attacks confusing and overwhelming the defences by attacking from different directions and altitudes but all timed to be over the target in a similar time frame. That would, I think, be the most productive tactic assuming the raids were unescorted.

If the raids were escorted, then some different tactics might apply. One would be to group the Mossies in large formations so that they could be more easily protected, but another might be to leave them to their 'swarm' attacks and send the escorts in separately to disrupt the defences by attacking the interceptors as they try to take off, etc.

All speculation of course as we have no direct evidence of how it might have worked.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

The main reason I question the pertinent statistics regarding the Lancaster vs the Mosquito is that they were compiled over varying time frames and under quite different and changing conditions.

True. It does make finding comparable loss statistics very difficult. However, note this extract which I posted before:

"In early 1944 a bulged bomb bay was introduced to hold a 4000 lb ‘cookie,’ doubling the bomb load. The combat introduction of the high-altitude B.XVI version, which was even harder to intercept, was in March. A paper by the Ministry or Aircraft Production calculated that, before the aircraft was lost, a Mosquito could be expected to drop an average of 1690 kg of bombs in 92 sorties. A Lancaster would drop 3370 kg on an average sortie, but survived on average only 28 sorties, and cost 2.8 times as much as a Mosquito."

This clearly refers to the use of the 'bulged' bomb bay planes in the strategic bombing campaign (the average bombload of nearly 4,000 lbs demonstrates that) and is likely to be the best comparison we can get.

quote:In the last months of the war, the losses of Lancasters and Mosquitos alike were very low--around .75 % I believe. This period was a much larger portion of the Mk BXVI's overall employment than it was of the Lancaster's.

We've been round this loop before: as I said before, if the defences had virtually collapsed then it didn't matter what you were flying, being caught was just bad luck. The tougher the oppostition, the better the Mossie would have performed relative to the heavies.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Kutscha]

Lightning might be interested in a conclusion reached in

THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY

Summary Report

(European War)

September 30, 1945
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#c

Speed, range, and striking power of the air weapons of the future, as indicated by the signposts of the war in Europe...

Speed is listed first and striking power last.

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

btw, the discussion seems to have headed towards Mossie vs Lanc, bombing at night. My personal feeling is that the Mossie could have been as effective, if not more so, than the B17 and B24s being flown during the day.

This was the original proposal put forward at the very beginning of this post...:)

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

It appears that your not really reading my postings. What I have said about the strategic use of the Mk BXVI has absolutely nothing to do with which aircraft, Lancaster or Mosquito, flew first. It also has absolutely nothing to do with when the first models of each flew their first missions of the war.

The BXVI was a relative late comer in the bombing campaign as opposed to the Lancaster. This is fact, and I shall not pursue the matter further.

The Luftwaffe only flew "several hundred sorties" against the Allied invasion of Fortress Europe--the most massive amphibious invasion in the history of the world??? Like I said, the Luftwaffe was completely defeated in the last year of the war, and this proves it. Also, I said less than five planes opposed the landings on the Normandy beaches. You say two; we are in general agreement on this, and it again proves my point.

Your comment on the "speed,range, striking power" reference in your sited website is meaningless to this discussion. It was a sentence that mentioned these elements in random order with no priority even implied. They could have been mentioned in any order without changing the meaning of this sentence to even the smallest degree. I think you'll agree that a bomber that has no striking power is completely useless no matter how fast it is.

Let's keep the debate on a credible level.

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

319 sorties according to Max Hastings (Overlord).
Only a couple actually made it to the beach owing to the rather large Allied fighter prescence.

But anyway.

I must admit to knida losing what the point of this was.

Fact: Luftwaffe daytime operations were pretty much knackered by the Americans by mid/late 1944. No debate there.

It is also true that their nightfighter force was actually not doing too badly, still turning up in force to counter BC raids. Obviously this declined with the lack of aircrew, fuel, bases to fly from, etc etc as the war ground on.

I think I asked earlier if anybody had a month-by-month breakdown of Lanc/Mossie losses.

If we could get that, along with additional info like sortie rate, mission type, etc etc...

Ah well.
I'm starting to think this is another 'agree to disagree' situation.
I often seem to end up with them when debating with Lightning...:)

[Lightning]

Tony,

The earlier versions of the Mosquito having the "bulged bomb bay"
were used comparitively little, in large measure because of their tail heaviness and poor handling qualities. Many, if not most, were reconfigured to other versions. The first version to be truly effective in the strategic role was the Mk BXVI, and it came along quite a bit later than the Mk I Lancaster, both in time and in its participation in the bombing campaign.

I,like you and others, am repeating myself, Monty Python notwithstanding.

Regareds,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

I am not the only one that is not really reading posts.

If it proves your point that the LW was completely defeated then heavy bombers were not required for the SBC, only for those missions requiring heavy lift. The Mossie would do very nicely.

While the day time LW force was more or less stagnant, the night time LW force was increasing in '44.

17 May 43
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths

Night fighters - 378

31 May 44

Night fighters - 572

That is a 51% increase.

10 January 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths

Night fighters - 808

That is a 113% increase from '43.

That is your take on the wording. What is the order for tanks? If striking power was more important then it would have been mentioned first. Speed is the most important as this gives less chance for interception and in 1944 the Mossie carried the same weight as the American heavies on long missions.

You disregard, still, the mentality of the times which wanted heavy bombers.