Magic Mossies

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Magic Mossies
Aussiegunneragain 7/11/2010 9:01:10 AM

There was a thread on here a few years ago put up by a fellow named Shooter, who was trying to make the argument that the Dehavilland Mosquito was a strategically insignificant aircraft which should never have been produced for the RAF, because it represented a waste of engines which could have better been used in Avro Lancasters. Shooter, an American, had a hobby of trying to diss any non-American type that had an excellent reputation (the Spitfire was another favourite target) and most people here told him he was being a clown with that being the end of it. However, the thread has stuck in the back of my mind and made me wonder whether in fact the Mossie, despite its widespread usage in a variety of roles, was in fact underutilised in the daylight strategic bombing role? It did perform some very important low level raids such as the daylight raid on the Phillips radio works (along with Ventura's and Bostons - far less Mossies were shot down)in Holland during Operation Oyster. However, I can't find many references to the Mossie being used for the sort of regular high altitude daylight strategic bombing missions that the B-17 and other USAF daylight heavies conducted. Consider its characteristics: -It could carry 4 x 500lb bombs all the way to Berlin which meant that you needed three mossies to carry a slightly larger warload than one B-17 did, which upon this basis meant more engine per lb of bomb in the Mossie. -However, the Mossie was hard to catch and was more survivable than the Heavies. The latter only really became viable with the addition of long-range escort fighters, something that the mossie could have done without. -It only required two crew versus ten on a B-17. Without intending to be critical of the USAF daylight heavies, because they were one of the strategically vital assets in winning WW2, I am wondering whether had the RAF used the Mossie in the role at the expense of night bombing operations in Lancasters? I have read accounts that suggest that the later were not really directly successful in shutting down German production, with the main contribution being that they forced the Germans to provide 24/7 air defence. If they had used Mossies more in the daylight precision role is it possible that the impact that the fighter-escorted USAF bombers had on German production might have been bought forward by a year or so, helping to end the War earlier? Another idea that I have is that if Reich fighter defences had started to get too tough for unescorted Merlin powered Mossies on strategic daylight missions, that they could have built the Griffon or Sabre powered versions that never happenned to keep the speed advantage over the FW-190? Up-engined Fighter versions of the Mossie would also have probably had sufficient performance to provide escort and fighter sweep duties in Germany in order to provide the bombers with even more protection. Thoughts? (PS, in case anybody hasn't worked it out the Mossie is my favourite military aircraft and my second favourite aircraft after the Supermarine S-6B ... so some bias might show through :-). I do think it has to rate as one of the best all round aircraft of all time based on its merits alone).

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NEXT

oldbutnotwise 1/31/2013 10:25:39 AM

IIRC and I could be wrong here, the molds were concrete and wernt difficult to make, the ovens whilst they did take some making they werent as difficult as some on the jigs needed for Lancs etc.

a major restriction was the balsa, this was shipped from Canada as an non important cargo - obviously that would need to change.

dehavallind built all the Mossies in the UK no attempt was made to farm out production, they should have forced Shorts and Handley page to convert to thier manufacture (ok maybe not Shorts who should have been faced to stop stirling production for Sunderlands)

Certianly Miles could have taken production.

as for Attack Mossies also opereated at altitude, they were targeted by OBOE at high level (OBOE only reached the

ruhr for Mainforce whilst Mossie operating at altitude could stretch that a lot further into Germany adledgedly mossie with OBOE had an accuracy of 300 yards)

pigeon holing the mossie is difficult as it seems to have been used in nearly every role (or at least considered for it)

Quote Reply

45-Shooter 1/31/2013 9:28:56 PM

IIRC and I could be wrong here, the molds were concrete and wernt difficult to make, the ovens whilst they did take some making they werent as difficult as some on the jigs needed for Lancs etc.

The molds were not the problem. It was the time required to trim and then lay up the laminations.

a major restriction was the balsa, this was shipped from Canada as an non important cargo - obviously that would need to change.

I am ashamed to admit that I can not remember where Balsa wood comes from and it is not Canada. After the hundreds of models I built I AM embarassed!
as for Attack Mossies also opereated at altitude, they were targeted by OBOE at high level (OBOE only reached the

ruhr for Mainforce whilst Mossie operating at altitude could stretch that a lot further into Germany adledgedly mossie with OBOE had an accuracy of 300 yards) I think this is hard to belive after looking at Damage assessment pics and reading about "Creep" and all the other problems.

pigeon holing the mossie is difficult as it seems to have been used in nearly every role (or at least considered for it)

That is true. But they used many planes for many different missions. The debate is about using the Mossy for replacement of the Lancaster. In that roll it IS a one trick pony.

Quote Reply

Belisarius1234 HMMM. IIRC.... 2/1/2013 1:21:33 AM

means If I Recall Correctly

We all make mistakes, incompetent. I made one about the P-40. OBNW did not say the balsa came from Ecuador. But he was correct about the BIRCH coming from Canada. I might have to ask him, if the plywood was laminated in Canada and shipped to Great Britain, or if the wood was sent as raw mill-stock and laminated in GB.

Whichever it was, the British held a propriety glue process, (forget the company) that made it rather sticky to farm production out country as it was virtually a state secret. As to Miles making wooden planes, I think they tried it post war and somehow that did not turn out too well. I could be wrong about that.

Testing....

Apparently I was right in memory about India. De Havilland did have to change the glue from Casein to something else, because of delamination.

About the molds.......

And as usual, Sruart, is wrong about the join process of the fuselage halves. That process was surprisingly QUICK.

I see no reason why if a US company had taken up the problem, Mosquito production could not easily have doubled. Must have been an industrial policy decision in GB.

IIRC and I could be wrong here, the molds were concrete and wernt difficult to make, the ovens whilst they did take some making they werent as difficult as some on the jigs needed for Lancs etc.

The molds were not the problem. It was the time required to trim and then lay up the laminations.

a major restriction was the balsa, this was shipped from Canada as an non important cargo - obviously that would need to change.

pigeon holing the mossie is difficult as it seems to have been used in nearly every role (or at least considered for it)

That is true. But they used many planes for many different missions. The debate is about using the Mossy for replacement of the Lancaster. In that roll it IS a one trick pony.

Quote Reply

oldbutnotwise 2/1/2013 2:46:56 AM

Bel, it was the Balsa that was the problem, I am sure I read that all supplies came VIA Canada (I know Canada doesnt grow Balsa)

I was wrong about the moulds though they were wood

Quote Reply

45-Shooter 2/1/2013 3:20:14 PM

We all make mistakes. I made one about the P-40.

And as usual, Sruart, is wrong about the join process of the fuselage halves. how can I be wrong about something I never said! See the actual quote below. I said that laying the laminations down was what required the most time! See the article he posted to confirm this!

I see no reason why if a US company had taken up the problem, Mosquito production could not easily have doubled. Must have been an industrial policy decision in GB. I think you are right about both of these points?

IIRC and I could be wrong here, the molds were concrete and wernt difficult to make, the ovens whilst they did take some making they werent as difficult as some on the jigs needed for Lancs etc.
The molds were not the problem. It was the time required to trim and then lay up the laminations.

Quote Reply

Belisarius1234 OBNW 2/1/2013 4:29:08 PM

I did leave that question hanging about the lamination and glue.

Aerolite....

That lamination had to be done in GB inside the DH fold molds. So I presume the Mosquito could NOT be built outside GB.

Quote Reply

oldbutnotwise 2/1/2013 5:23:32 PM

Bel, must disagree that they couldnt be built outside the UK, as they were built in both Canada and Australia It would seem that it could, (there was also plans to build them in the US but these were never constructed)

Quote Reply

Belisarius1234 Australian Mosquitoes. 2/1/2013 5:40:36 PM

Learned something new. Always a good day when that happens. Their manufacturing methods from those in GB are different! B.

Quote Reply

giblets 2/12/2013 3:33:39 PM

Just noticed this thread, and afraid I've not read all of it (or indeed most of it), but have noticed a couple of inaccuracies.

The Mossie could carry 4,000lbs of bombs 1,500miles, ie. Berlin and back

B-17 was also around 4,000lbs for Berlin

It was also not unknown for a Mossie to conduct two missions in a night, to Berlin too (presumably in winter with the longer nights!).

Also a nice quote: "Post war, the RAF found that when finally applied to bombing, in terms of useful damage done, the Mosquito had proved 4.95 times cheaper than the Lancaster...."

Though not sure if that is just in terms of manufacturing, crew, fuel etc, but guess the many precision raids helped.

As many of the posts point out, the loss rates of the mosquito were also far lower than the Lancaster (some figures reveal it to be about 1/4 - 1/3 ).

Quote Reply

45-Shooter 2/12/2013 4:11:08 PM

as for Attack Mossies also opereated at altitude, they were targeted by OBOE at high level (OBOE only reached the ruhr for Mainforce whilst Mossie operating at altitude could stretch that a lot further into Germany adledgedly mossie with OBOE had an accuracy of 300 yards) I think this is hard to belive after looking at Damage assessment pics and reading about "Creep" and all the other problems.

The formula for finding the over the horizon range of radio/radar is;
(Square root of altitude in meters) times 3.586.
So if the Mossy was at 10,000 M altitude, the range of OBOE is 358.6 Kilometers from the mid point of the axis between the stations.
Could you please list a post war studdy showing the bombing accuracy of OBOE as 300 M?

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NEXT