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
Maratabc       3/14/2013 7:16:46 PM
Where did this nonsense about RAF losses to flak come from? Is this some fantasy pulled from the same vapors that allows someone to say that the Flying Fortress  was a more accurate bomber than the Lancaster?
 
Night fighters were the main cause of Lancaster losses when all known causes from German and allied records are examined. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    Survivability   3/14/2013 10:02:06 PM
All I know is this...if I were a 18 yr old aircrewman being assigned to bombers which aircraft would you prefer to serve in?
1) The B17, tough, extremely resitant to damage, heaviliy armed so you can at least shoot back or:
2) A wooden unarmed (.303 MG's hardly count), unarmored, flimsy deathtrap.
 
The B-17 is the far superior aircraft in that it kept its crews alive better...and that is not disputable.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    I was going to answer all these points one by one, but...   3/14/2013 11:14:51 PM



But then the B-17 carries much more fuel and can stay in the air about a third more hours than the Lancaster. range is fungable, with additional long range tanks a Lanc could take the 4500lbs bomb load of the B17 to a range of 5500 miles
Not on your life!
... They are all the same answers that you have never addressed before. It is simple, at the same speed, altitude and Load to RTB, the B-17 will out range the Lancaster by 10-20% and there has been no argument that you have made to dispute this with facts! No Lancaster raid has ever been made at 2,200 miles round trip with any bomb load! It is just to far for the Lanc at any weight!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    I was going to answer all these points one by one, but...   3/14/2013 11:26:03 PM

The point of the link you post is that the Tirpitz was sunk just south of the city! What you do not state is that the lancaster flew that mission with stripped planes loaded to take off weights of 72,000 pounds FROM SCOTLAND!
     or maybe the earlier raid tirpitz raid further north?
only the Tallboy were stripped, the mine layers also on the mission were STANDARD lancasters and maybe you should look at the difference between where the Lancasters were bombing and where the B17 bombed

The mine layers also flew from Scotland and did not have that great a load on concidering the range!  Just one question, where was it launched from? RIGHT! I get it. You hate me because I come off as so smug when I am right?
you are always smug but as for when you are right I wouldn't know as I cant remember when it has ever happened I was/am right about all of the above! The Norway raids launched from Scotland, the American B-17 raids launched from about 30 miles west of London! The Great Circle range from base to bomb plot is just a scooch over 912 statute miles each way. But the true, still air, range was just a scooch less than 1100 miles each way! Name a Lancaster raid that flew 75% of that distance! Berlin is, IIRC, about 500 miles from south east England to the center of down town Berlin, so about 1000 miles round trip. Since the publiched plackard range with 14,000 pounds up is 1,100 miles, or 550 miles each way and at lower altitude than when B-17s were sent to the same targets. So yes, the B-17 has much greater range and there is absolutely nothing a Lanc Fan-Boy can do about it!
    oh and I love they way you add an extra 300 miles to your raid?
  Not at all! Didn't you know that they launched the American raid from bases west of London
 check your maps and see exactly were these places are in relationship to each other, and remember that the B17 were based in that area as they were more range restricted than the Lancaster based further north
 and the RAF/Lancaster raids from SCOTLAND?
to much further north than the B17 target No, the Tirpitz was about 40 miles south of the B-17 bomb plot. So no, they did not fly as far
And that the American raid blew almost due north from those bases as the climbed and formed up, then turned East for a total Air Range of just under 2,200 statute miles! 2,200 MILES! RIGHT!
actually if you check the flight paths of those raid you will find that they flew directly to the target at 2500ft climbing on reaching the coast (the details are online if you check the Bomb group records)
oh and the citation for the medals won for that mission state 1900miles and I will believe the medal citation over you anyday
so you are still batting zero Then to make it fair, site a Lanc raid that flew 1,900 miles round trip!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    I was going to answer all these points one by one, but...   3/14/2013 11:35:29 PM

 The mission to Trondhiem (I guess he means the bombing one and not the leaflet dropping one) dropped maximum 4000lbs/aircarft at 15000ft in 43 YES! Absolutely true! But it was 2,200 miles round trip! OOPS, I forgot to add "Almost" to the prior sentance just to be perfectly accurate!
so you are saying that the citation for the medals awarded lied when they said 1900?
  No, they must have used the Great Circle range for what ever reason. But if you go to the marked maps and measure the range it is 1,097 miles, not counting clime out and formation! Just the ground track! But even if you stipulate the actual range was 1,900 miles round trip, name the Lanc raid that flew that far! Right!
So far I havent found a Lancaster mision to Trondheim but I have found an earlier BC mission in May 42 when Wellingtons dropped 4000lbs/Aircraft loads fom 14000ft (I discouned the Hampdens attacking the Tripitz with 1500lbs torpedoes as that would just make the some of the B17 with 2000lbs loads look bad) Why should I worry about these raids? After all they all only flew less than 1200 miles round trip! Just because the targets were the same place, does not meen that they flew the same distance BECAUSE they launched from 300 miles farther away!

 2. the Lancaster and the missions above were all flown from Scotland and were little more than half the distance that the American B-17s flew! 3. This illistrates the altitude factor well!
you really don't have a clue do you? the BC raids on Trondheim were actually flown from airbases that were later assigned to the 8th the Lancaster raid on tonso was far longer than the B17 on Trondhiem
  B-17s were never launched from Scotland to Norway! No Lancaster raid ever went 1200 miles round trip and they were ALL at lower altitudes!



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    I was going to answer all these points one by one, but...   3/14/2013 11:39:33 PM

A bomber that is light and responsive to control inputs?
Victor
Valiant
Vulcan 
Canberra also fits.
And which of these has manualy powered controls?
  I like the way that you pick planes that are two decades later and in no way even remotely resemble a 18 ton prop plane with manually powered controlls! Right!!!!!!
 

 

 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/14/2013 11:46:38 PM

Where did this nonsense about RAF losses to flak come from? German night fighter victory records can only account for between 30-40% of all RAF-BC bomber losses! Night fighters were the main cause of Lancaster losses Where did you get this info? when all known causes from German and allied records are examined. 
How do the Allies know the cause of losses? How do you explain the fact that the Germans claimed less than half of the number of losses by the most permissive accounting?
 
 



 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/14/2013 11:56:40 PM
The Lancaster was an ALL METAL fuselage aircraft.
 
 
If you do not know this much, how can you state with any certainty, other 'facts'?
 
Loss of crew was more due to poor bailout routes from a crippled plane than due to robustness, besides the propensity for any bomber to to explode when hit in the main fuel tank or bomb bay by explosive incendiaries.
 

 

The B-17 is the far superior aircraft in that it kept its crews alive better...and that is not disputable.
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/14/2013 11:58:58 PM
Since the one called Shooter cannot be trusted to read data or report sources accurately, his claims can be discounted.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/15/2013 12:30:04 AM

The Lancaster was an ALL METAL fuselage aircraft.
Who said it was not? http://www.dark-history.eu/avro_lancaster.htm" target="_blank">http://www.dark-history.eu/avro_lancaster.htm
Note that these two web sites dispute the maximum range, both between them selves and Wiki? 
If you do not know this much, how can you state with any certainty, other 'facts'?
What are you on about?
 
Loss of crew was more due to poor bailout routes from a crippled plane than due to robustness, besides the propensity for any bomber to to explode when hit in the main fuel tank or bomb bay by explosive incendiaries.
You do not have to bail out if the plane is tough enough to get you home!
 The B-17 is the far superior aircraft in that it kept its crews alive better...and that is not disputable.

Bomber Command crews also suffered an extremely high casualty rate: 55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death rate), a further 8,403 were wounded in action and 9,838 became prisoners of war. This covered all Bomber Command operations including tactical support for ground operations and mining of sea lanes.[clarification needed][24] A Bomber Command crew member had a worse chance of survival than an infantry officer in World War I.[24] By comparison, the US Eighth Air Force, which flew daylight raids over Europe had 350,000 aircrew during the war and suffered 26,000 killed and 23,000 POWs.[24] Of the RAF Bomber Command personnel killed during the war, 72% were British, 18% were Canadian, 7% were Australian and 3% were New Zealanders. [25]

Taking an example of 100 airmen:[26]

  • 55 killed on operations or died as result of wounds
  • three injured (in varying levels of severity) on operations or active service
  • 12 taken prisoner of war (some injured)
  • two shot down and evaded capture
  • 27 survived a tour of operations
In total 364,514 operational sorties were flown, 1,030,500 tons of bombs were dropped and 8,325 aircraft lost in action.
I note that more crew died in BC and a much smaller percentage were able to bail out to become POWs than in American planes. This is point one! Then there is the previously argued range issue, not disputed. This is issue two. Then there is the durrability and reliability issue. This is issue three. Then there is the Lanc's frailty issue. That is number four. And lastly, no-one here has shown the proofes that a Lanc could survive a hung thousand pound bomb in the last row aft! This hung bomb issue is a very big deal because hung bombs were a very common thing. As many as 1-2% of all missions involve hung bombs. With it's long bay, a hung bomb in the back row would put 13,000 pound feet of out of range CG tolerance! Some one else besides me should run those numbers if they are to dispute my original idea that this was one of the causes of so many Lancaster losses!
 
 
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