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       1/22/2013 3:15:37 AM


compressibility.

P-38D was redesigned to solve tail flutter; not compressibility. It didn't work until three tries later with the G's.  The compressibility could not be solved until powered whole elevator and partial rudder plane controls (invented by the British) were incorporated into the Sabre.
Little things like "facts" are important.
Shooter doesnt like facts they tend to contradict his pet theories so normally he ignores them
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/23/2013 9:12:13 PM


  compressibility.
P-38D was redesigned to solve tail flutter; not compressibility. It didn't work until three tries later with the G's.  The compressibility could not be solved until powered whole elevator and partial rudder plane controls (invented by the British) were incorporated into the Sabre.
Little things like "facts" are important.
I agree!  
Shooter doesnt like facts they tend to contradict his pet theories so normally he ignores them

  I only ignore facts that are not pertenant to the argument.

I love facts, but when I post them most here ignore them. I never ignore any fact when it applies to any of my "Pet Theories"! I think your problem is that you post other peoples oppinions as facts.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/24/2013 2:57:10 AM






  compressibility.

P-38D was redesigned to solve tail flutter; not compressibility. It didn't work until three tries later with the G's.  The compressibility could not be solved until powered whole elevator and partial rudder plane controls (invented by the British) were incorporated into the Sabre.


Little things like "facts" are important.

I agree!  



Shooter doesnt like facts they tend to contradict his pet theories so normally he ignores them


  I only ignore facts that are not pertenant to the argument.


I love facts, but when I post them most here ignore them. I never ignore any fact when it applies to any of my "Pet Theories"! I think your problem is that you post other peoples oppinions as facts.

Thats becuase there are never any facts connected with your pet theories
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/25/2013 12:00:03 AM

  
   



    
     


  compressibility.


P-38D was redesigned to solve tail flutter; not compressibility. It didn't work until three tries later with the G's.  The compressibility could not be solved until powered whole elevator and partial rudder plane controls (invented by the British) were incorporated into the Sabre.
I love facts, but when I post them most here ignore them. I never ignore any fact when it applies to any of my "Pet Theories"! I think your problem is that you post other peoples oppinions as facts.


Thats becuase there are never any facts connected with your pet theories
You only have that view when you ignore statements I make.
Fact number one. A smaller planes is harder to see.
Fact number two. A faster plane is more likely to win a combat.
Fact number three. A plane that has better flight dynamics, IE is steadier and easier to point, is statistically more likely to win a combat.
I hope that is enough to get you started.

 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/25/2013 3:32:05 AM
You only have that view when you ignore statements I make.
Fact number one. A smaller planes is harder to see.
Opinion
You would need to define what is meant by small, a I16 was small but was easier to spot that a LA7
 
Fact number two. A faster plane is more likely to win a combat.
opinion
You need to priovide evidence that speed ALONE is the deciding factor
 
Fact number three. A plane that has better flight dynamics, IE is steadier and easier to point, is statistically more likely to win a combat.
thats opinion not fact
Again its only a fact when you show that it is the deciding factor
 
 
I hope that is enough to get you started.
Again you state opinion and claim its fact, it isnt, a case can be made for each of the above and a case can be made against
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/25/2013 9:14:48 PM

It is unlikely that Mosquito loss rates would have been anywhere near the loss rates for the heavies so the requirement for extra pilots would not have been as severe as has been suggested.


Its a fighter bomber with LC ICE engines. The equivalent is the loss rate for tactical fighter bombers not heavy bombers and the loss mechanism is flak.

 

Those two errors compounded by your underestimate of the flight training needed for aircrew that not only have to fly, but do their own precision bombing and navigation at night using two or three men instead of the usual five shows that you don't really know the difficulties involved.

 

H. 


 

I would still ask for answers to the following questions;
1. If you were in charge of German Air Deffenses with just the assets they had to defend the Homeland and you had to allocate the fighters between HIGH PERFORMANCE Daytime types and much lower performance Night Fighters, How would you deploy them against the following three target sets? Presigion Day bombers, the Heavy night time bombers with 7-14 thousand pounds up, or the light Mossy with 2000 pounds up?
2. IF the Brits had chosen to switch from Lancs and other heavies to an ALL Mossy fleet, do you think the Germans would have adjusted their Night Fighter force to planes with the performance to catch and shoot them down?
3. On the other hand, if the Brits had made the other choice to drop the mossy and concentrate on just Lancs, how much of a difference could the Germans make by altering their force allocation?

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/25/2013 9:39:45 PM

You only have that view when you ignore statements I make.
Fact number one. A smaller planes is harder to see.
Opinion
You would need to define what is meant by small, a I16 was small but was easier to spot that a LA7
You define visual small by the dimention of the last part of the plane that can still be resolved by the eye. IE, the horizontal width of the fuselage from head on, the verticle hight of the fuse from the side and the cord of the wing from the top or below.
Once these dimentions fall below the resolution of the eye, it is IMPOSSIBLE to see them from that angle.
Using this simple fact, it is possible to comput the distance at which any given person/pilot can see the plane. If we compair any two planes the one with the smaller dimentions will be the harder to spot at any given distance, OR will be closer when it crosses that threshold of vision.

 Fact number two. A faster plane is more likely to win a combat. opinion
You need to priovide evidence that speed ALONE is the deciding factor                                                                                                          
It is easy to prove using game theory.1. First the faster plane has a harder time getting bounced because it takes longer for the slower plane to catch it. 2. the faster plane makes more bounces because the target has less time to see it comming. 3. Once engaged, the faster plane has a greater chance to escape by separation. 4. the slower plane can not escape by separation. When combined into a unified P of Sucess, the faster plane has a larger number than the slower plane. When taken over many hundreds of thousands of encounters, it will clearly show the sum of that advantage. 
Fact number three. A plane that has better flight dynamics, IE is steadier and easier to point, is statistically more likely to win a combat. thats opinion not fact
I would disput that because of the shere obsurdity of the argument. By reducing it to the most obscene ends of the spectrum, it become obvious. The worst handling plane on the planet is less likely to score than the best handling plane. Everything else in between is just a mater of degrees.
Again its only a fact when you show that it is the deciding factor
Like the arguments above, it is not by itself "THE DECIDING FACTOR"! It is how ever very easy to proove by either of the methods above. But when added as a multiplier in the chain of factors that determine P sub Sucess, it becomes easy to see that any plane that makes the choices to maximize those cumulitive factors will be more sucessful than any that do not.
I hope that is enough to get you started. It is! Thank you for the curtisy of making a detailed and rational argument based on the ideas under discussion.
Again you state opinion and claim its fact, it isnt, a case can be made for each of the above and a case can be made against
  Like so many of the ideas above, the factualness of them should be self evident if one were to reduce each to it's most obsurd ends and then define it down by degrees.
Thank you for the curtisy of making a detailed and rational argument based on the ideas under discussion.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/28/2013 4:53:59 PM
As a simple argument it sounds good, but the failure of that total argument is the sum of it's parts and the exclusion of other facts and the German choises.
1. The fact is that WO day light precision bombing, the Germans are not required to come up and play where thay can be destroyed.
2. If only one half of the total operational mission is used then the night side mission quickly fails because it is the day light portion of the mission spectrom that is the driving force that the Germans MUST deffend with most of their scarce resources.
3. The Mossy is a very neet AC, but it is also a one trick pony as it were. If the other parts of the combined mission are missing, IE both day and night bombing by HEAVY BOMBERS, the Nazis can devote their entire resource package to the destruction of that part of the total. Just because it is hard to catch in the presence of other more valuable targets, does not grant that same immunity alone. There is no model of the Mossy, even very late war versions that can out run Mid war planes like the Me-109G and Fw-190D with power adders. Remember it is not top speed that counts, it is how fast can you go for an hour.
4. With out the speed, maneuverability, OR deffencive guns, it is easy prey for most single engine fighters, when it is the only target in the sky.
5. Lastly AAA is inversely effective as the square of the altitude. The higher you fly, the less effective it is. So a plane at 20K' is four times easier to hit than one at 28,280'.
All of these facts combine to take the Mossy out of the picture IF it is the only tool in the shed.
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    How do you explain    1/29/2013 11:54:17 AM
F>
 
Stuart?
 
The British did their part.
 
B.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/29/2013 3:59:32 PM
As a simple argument it sounds good, but the failure of that total argument is the sum of it's parts and the exclusion of other facts and the German choises.
1. The fact is that WO day light precision bombing, the Germans are not required to come up and play where thay can be destroyed.
 
so daylight bombing was using bombers as bait? in that case what they were dropping would be faily irrelavent
 
2. If only one half of the total operational mission is used then the night side mission quickly fails because it is the day light portion of the mission spectrom that is the driving force that the Germans MUST deffend with most of their scarce resources.
but if the night bombing was doing as much damage as it was doing then it is either going to continue or you have to react and night fighter tended to be bigger twin engined aircraft which require MORE resource than a single engined day fighter
 
3. The Mossy is a very neet AC, but it is also a one trick pony as it were. If the other parts of the combined mission are missing, IE both day and night bombing by HEAVY BOMBERS,
but the B17 could only carry a slightly bigger bomb load than a Mossie so other than beeing a bigger target and therefore more attractive to the german attackers so using  mossies during the day would have little loss of bomb load and would have resulted in far fewer losses
 
The mossie is hardly one trick is it? it could carry 1 x4000lbs bomb to berlin, or 6x500lbs also to berlin, it also acted as a night fighter and strike aircraft, whilst a B17 was only a mediocre bomb truck but a successful bait
 
 the Nazis can devote their entire resource package to the destruction of that part of the total.
easier said than done, the fast bomber was the prefered solution for most of history especially against heavy air defense
 
Just because it is hard to catch in the presence of other more valuable targets, does not grant that same immunity alone. There is no model of the Mossy, even very late war versions that can out run Mid war planes like the Me-109G and Fw-190D with power adders. Remember it is not top speed that counts, it is how fast can you go for an hour.
 
the problem is that if you have 100mph over the bomber only in level flight, if you need to climb to intercept you forget that little fact, mossies often left 190ds behind in the real world.
also thier is always the possibility of a griffon engined version should more speed be required
 
 
4. With out the speed, maneuverability, OR deffencive guns, it is easy prey for most single engine fighters, when it is the only target in the sky.
 
easy answer, only have 1 bomber nosed mossie per flight of 4, the other three have the 4x303 nose guns (or even one with the 4x20mm), visually these would be impossible to identify so that bomber you have behind you can suddenly blow your wings off
 
5. Lastly AAA is inversely effective as the square of the altitude. The higher you fly, the less effective it is. So a plane at 20K' is four times easier to hit than one at 28,280'.
 
but as at 28000k you cannot hit anything unless you are a OBOE equiped mossie so a mossie raid at 28000k is more likely to hit the target than a B17 raid at 22000k
All of these facts combine to take the Mossy out of the picture IF it is the only tool in the shed.
but noone is saying ONLY tool just as ther MAIN tool, especially when you look at the heavies, replacing the heavies with fast smaller bombers isnt a strange idea as it is basically what happened in the real world
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics