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
45-Shooter       3/28/2013 8:36:46 PM

But baudet (liar) you just said a few posts ago that ailerons were more crucial to point than elevator control in pitch. No, I stated that ailerons are more important to turning and maneuver. You said this. Now you contradict yourself. Further, you non-thinking non-comprehending person, I was NOT talking about center of gravity when I noted force vectors affecting lift.
Then what were you going on about and how does it explain large shift in CoG?
 


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    Part two;   3/28/2013 8:44:01 PM

Your incomprehension about aircraft instability is further demonstrated when you confuse control issues with center of gravity placement and assert backwards
Quote the part of my post that is BACKWARDS!
 
 

Nice lecture on basic aerodynamics, you should read it! Then post that part which explains how any aircraft can fly when it is so out of CoG Range and ballance!
 
 

I have no use for such ignorance.
Then read what is in the links that you post!
 
 

 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/28/2013 9:00:37 PM

I didn't even try, actual Lancaster blueprints are not afaik available online,
I just got my copy of Bill Sweetman's book "Avro Lancaster" and guess what? There are no inspection or any other openings in the floor/bomb bay roof through which a hung bomb can be un-hung or even seen! The floor structure is the main beam of the fuselage and is constructed of a serries of stringers and plated over on both top and bottom! 
Given the possible and sudden PIO and near instantainious destruction of the plane caused by excessive aft CoG, it sounds entirely possible to me!
then you are thick
Then you did not read the text in the link about "Basic Aerodynamic Principles" posted just one or two before this!
How else can you explain the >55,000 RAF-BC losses? Lancasters alone accounted for more deaths than the entire USAAF heavy bomber's crew losses.
 
That is B-17s, B-24s, B-29s and ALL of the smaller Medium Bombers too!
talk sense
I am, the entire USAAF lost about 52,000 crewmen. Of that 52K, a little under half were HEAVY bomber crews!
You base this on the fact that the USAAF lost about the same number of planes, but those losses were 80% less dangerous to their crews because the RAF's targets were so much more dangerous? RIGHT! This is silly on it's face!
What that more dangerous targets result in higher casulties?
 
 This is true! Day light raids are far and away the most dangerous, at least according to the RAF!
When a RAF Heavy went down, less than 11% of the crew escaped, IIRC! What kind of catastrophic event could cause the plane to explode so quickly that no-one gets out?
Shows how little of the night air war Shooter actually understands
I would counter with the idea that the Lancaster has two problems. 1. They flew so much lower than American heavies during the day that they took much higher losses to Flak.
as the Flak defenses could reach to the celing of the B17 and the average height of B17 mission was 23000' I call rubbish on this, especially when the targets the B17 are sent against have <10% of the flak defnses as those the Lanc is sent
 Then you miss the entire point again. The altitude of the plane determins how effective the Flak is. The higher the plane, the less effective the Flak. The differance in range between any two AC SQUARED is directly porportional to the effect of Flak! So the Lower flying Lancs took it in the shorts much more than the higher flying American planes!
2. It was a much less robust plane and succumbed to much less damage than even the B-24!
So You say but have NEVER provided any proof just your feelings on the issue, I have however shown that the B17 was weaker than then the Lanc
 But the testimonies of so many Lancaster crews tell a very different story! Who am I to argue with them?

Fine by me. Why don't you come up with a theory that explains why the RAF lost so many more crew and planes per sortie than the USAAF?
 
What like target allocation? its not like bombing the ruhr was mone dangerous than small French airfields is it?
You can absolutely state that! Bombing almost any target   in broad day light is very much MORE DANGEROUS than bombing almost any target in the middle of the night! So yes, you  are absolutely right, bombing French Air Fields in day light IS much more Dangerous than Bombing the Rhur Vally in the middle of the pitch black night!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/28/2013 9:05:58 PM

For the one called Shooter.

Do you know what the difference between slant range, Yes! maximum effective range, Yes! and optimum range is for AAA? Yes! For which and what type? Yes, times six???

Do you know what angular track velocity is?
Yes!
Do you know what warning time and engagement time is, and what the difference is?
Yes, yes, and yes!
Do you know what track solution, and lead solution is and what that difference is?
Not shure, I think at least one of those terms is British and am not familiar with it's true meaning as it relates to my understanding.
Do you know what contact fire and probability fire is, and which is used when and why?
Maybe, but not shure, I think those terms are British and am not familiar with it's true meaning as it relates to my understanding.
I doubt that you do. Even if you looked it up it requires a deep understanding of what I ask for you to give me the correct answers.

You will not be able to cut and paste or lie your way through it.
I gave you true answers, would you like explanations?


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/28/2013 9:34:02 PM

OK ONE LAST TIME, the USAAF flew less dangerous missions, How on earth can they be less dangerous when there are fewer people in fighter planes shooting at them and it is dark to boot!
The Target you moron, if you fly against light defended targets you get less defensive firepower
NO! This entire argument is false on it's face! The RAF stated numerous times that daylight raids were much more dangerous than night time raids, regardless of which targets were attacked! One of the deffinitions of Deffensive Strength is the numbers of weapons and their effectiveness araid against you. At night there are many fewer and much less effective fighter attacks against you. During the daylight, every fighter with in 100 miles can see your contrails and knows exactly how to get to and attack you. At night less than 10% as many intercepts are attempted and fewer still were effective. That is why most Lancaster losses were to Flak, not fighters.
flying the same missions during the day as the Lancs did at night resulted in much higher casuaties for the USAAF even with heavy fighter escorts So you continue to think this in spite of what the RAF said to the contrarry!
 
I am, the entire USAAF lost about 52,000 crewmen. Of that 52K, a little under half were bomber crews!

disproved already
No, you have not! The RAF official History states that Bomber Command lost about 55,000 crew to combat. Since the Americans lost less than half that many Heavy Bomber crew and under more ardous conditions, at least according to the RAF, it follows that the Lancaster could not have been as tough a plane.
This entire line of argument is falacious on it's face! Night missions were very much safer than day light missions regardless of which targets were hit! The RAF said so! Don't you believe the RAF?
The RAF dont say so it just you that dont understand the basics
Yes, they did! Why did the bomb at night if it was not less dangerous given that at night it was not possible to bomb target smaller than entire cities and even then got less than half their bombs inside city limits!

The lower the target, the deadlier it gets as the square of the differance in altitude! Example; Altitude 23,000' Vs 16,000' = 207% more effective!
The only real difference in altitude is the type of flak the lower altitudes bring in the lower calibers ohter wise the altitdue makes little difference 
Not true at all! It is easy to proovew that the closer you are to the gun, the easier it is to get a hit, (With in the tracking ability of the gun/system!), the easier it is to get hits, the more targets are destroyed! The longer the "Time of Flight" the more chance the shells will be deflected by wind to miss by so much distance that the burst is completely harmless! The bomber stream is not wide, but very long and the Flak gunners must aim at small groups of planes as there is no, (Less than 1%) chance of a single gun getting a direct hit on a single plane! They miss that box of four by more than 50-60 Meters, they might as well have saved the shell. In fact the Germans had calculated that it was more effective to fire contact fused shells that try to time thyem to explode with in leathal range of airbourn targets! So one last time, thye lower you are the more effective the Flak is and the rule for telling the differance is porportional to the square of the range differance! Learn to live with it.
RIGHT! Show me some picks of Lancs with horrendous damage, or go home!
as for Lanc Damage
 
direct you to the "Lancaster at War" series of books
I've seen them, own one, but it is packed away in Utah, and NONE of the ones I've seen show a single Lancaster with the kind of dammage that a hundred B-17s survived! Not ONE!


 


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/28/2013 9:43:02 PM

Ask you friend who flys C-130s what would happen to that bird if it had a sudden excusion of CG so far aft as the same control ration and CG Range as the Lancaster! Go ahead and ask!
 
Loaading restrictions apply to all aircraft but they are PROPORTIONAL, if a 1000lbs bomb hanging on the last row was going to cause the plane to become unflyable then one on the NEXT to last row would cause the plane to become difficult to fly, or a 500lbs bomb on a rack further aft would also cause problems, yet no such problems were reported, and it not that sudden as you your self pointed out as if it was then the fact that it was the last row to be released would cause it.
as for my friend the C130 pilot, well as he has airdropped a Striker AFV whilst flying for your airforce he reckons that a large weight to the aft of the CoG is not neccessarialy fatal
Ahah! Got you now! 1. The C-130 has about twenty times the elevator and stabiliser power of the Lanc. 2. the Stricker MASS is only on the ramp for a split second. Ask your C-130 pilot, if you really have one, what would happen if the Striker AFV hung up on the ramp and failed to depart the plane? Go ahead ask!
As to your silly argument that the bomb in the next row would make it hard to fly, have you calc'd the moment arm of the two conditions and plotted them on the CoG chart? Right! I know you have not, or you never would have made the statement!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/28/2013 9:52:34 PM


Must point out two errors.

Rate for angle track is a function of slant distance. The nearer the object, the greater the track angle divergence over time. This means a low altitude target requires a faster tracking gun lay. while a farther object away requires a slower, or more exactly less fast tracking gun lay.

The farther away a target is the more time in flight for the shell or bullet. Large caliber explosive shells need to be used for distant objects. Bullets for near objects. There is a place between the range extreme where neither work well.
that is what auto-cannon like the 20 MM Olrilikon and 40MM Bofors and their kin are for!
This is about 5000-7000 meters distant.
That is why the Germans did this; http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_55_Gerat58.htm">http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_55_Gerat58.htm
Because Lancaster and other British Heavy and American Medium Bombers were flying and attacking in that altitude band!


 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/28/2013 10:07:47 PM
Incorrect answers to all. Your knowledge is non-existent.

Do you know what contact fire and probability fire is, and which is used when and why?
Maybe, but not shure, I think those terms are British and am not familiar with it's true meaning as it relates to my understanding.
I doubt that you do. Even if you looked it up it requires a deep understanding of what I ask for you to give me the correct answers.

You will not be able to cut and paste or lie your way through it.


I gave you true answers, would you like explanations?







Do not lie about this.
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/28/2013 10:13:19 PM
They only made two of the 58 mm/77s and they did not work.
 
Do you understand why you are considered a Pierrot, Shooter?






Must point out two errors.

Rate for angle track is a function of slant distance. The nearer the object, the greater the track angle divergence over time. This means a low altitude target requires a faster tracking gun lay. while a farther object away requires a slower, or more exactly less fast tracking gun lay.

The farther away a target is the more time in flight for the shell or bullet. Large caliber explosive shells need to be used for distant objects. Bullets for near objects. There is a place between the range extreme where neither work well.
that is what auto-cannon like the 20 MM Olrilikon and 40MM Bofors and their kin are for!
This is about 5000-7000 meters distant.



That is why the Germans did this; >>. com="" weapons="" wnger_55_gerat58.htm"="" target="_blank">http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_55_Gerat58.htm">http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_55_Gerat58.htm" target="_blank">http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_55_Gerat58.htm


Because Lancaster and other British Heavy and American Medium Bombers were flying and attacking in that altitude band!





 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/29/2013 2:33:54 PM
I didn't even try, actual Lancaster blueprints are not afaik available online,     
I just got my copy of Bill Sweetman's book "Avro Lancaster" and guess what? There are no inspection or any other openings in the floor/bomb bay roof through which a hung bomb can be un-hung or even seen!
 
what not on any of the 50 whole pages that book contains, does it even show the fuselage floor above the bays, if it does what are all those panels for? couldn't they make panels bigger than that?
and just how did the crew manage this if there was no way
 
 The floor structure is the main beam of the fuselage and is constructed of a serries of stringers and plated over on both top and bottom! 
those plates were REMOVABLE
Given the possible and sudden PIO and near instantainious destruction of the plane caused by excessive aft CoG, it sounds entirely possible to me!
then you are thick      
       Then you did not read the text in the link about "Basic Aerodynamic Principles" posted just one or two before this!      
I did and it clearly does not state that such a change in CofG would cause the planes destruction
How else can you explain the >55,000 RAF-BC losses? Lancasters alone accounted for more deaths than the entire USAAF heavy bomber's crew losses.
  pointless as you are not listening
       
 
 This is true! Day light raids are far and away the most dangerous, at least according to the RAF!
Not again
 
 Then you miss the entire point again. The altitude of the plane determins how effective the Flak is
 The higher the plane, the less effective the Flak. The differance in range between any two AC SQUARED is directly porportional to the effect of Flak! So the Lower flying Lancs took it in the shorts much more than the higher flying American planes!
2. It was a much less robust plane and succumbed to much less damage than even the B-24!
So You say but have NEVER provided any proof just your feelings on the issue, I have however shown that the B17 was weaker than then the Lanc    
 But the testimonies of so many Lancaster crews tell a very different story! Who am I to argue with them?

Fine by me. Why don't you come up with a theory that explains why the RAF lost so many more crew and planes per sortie than the USAAF?
I have but it seems to be complete beyond your ability to understand sorry I cant come up with a simplistic solution for you but hey that's life and something are beyond the ability to comprehend (especially yours)
 
What like target allocation? its not like bombing the ruhr was mone dangerous than small French airfields is it?    
You can absolutely state that! Bombing almost any target               in        broad day light is very much MORE DANGEROUS than bombing almost any target in the middle of the night! So yes, you  are absolutely right, bombing French Air Fields in day light IS much more Dangerous than Bombing the Rhur Vally in the middle of the pitch black night!
Ok if this is the limit of your knowledge there is no point continuing, you have a stupid theory and resfuse to listen to sense, this argument is over I cant educate pork
 
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



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics