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       3/15/2013 12:41:39 AM
Same answer to the gibberish posted.
Since the one called Shooter cannot be trusted to read data or report sources accurately, his claims can be discounted.

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/15/2013 4:05:09 AM
The point of the link you post is that the Tirpitz was sunk just south of the city!
OF TRONSO NOT TRONDHEIM diferent places zeeze
Lossiemouth to Troso is 1050 miles as the crow flys Peterborouh to Trondheim is 850 miles, so how the hell can you say the Lanc was shorter ranged (and it blows your no mission further clear out of the water
 

The mine layers also flew from Scotland and did not have that great a load on concidering the range! 
 
no just 5000lbs of sea mines, flown to a location 1050 miles away - furher than ANY B17 carried ANY bomb load
 
 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!
No you ae clearly wrong as you can't even get the RIGHT PLACE
The Norway raids launched from Scotland, the American B-17 raids launched from about 30 miles west of London!
firstly 30 miles west of london drops you into the Thames or in Kent neither of which had USAAF bases, most B17 bases were between 60 -120 miles NORTH 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!
not according to OFFICAL USSAF figures which has the mission at 1900 miles
 
Name a Lancaster raid that flew 75% of that distance!
 
The Lossiemouth to Tronso mine laying mission clearly more than 75% 
 
Berlin is, IIRC, about 500 miles from south east England to the center of down town Berlin, so about 1000 miles round trip.
Since it was never flown directly as that would take it over the biggest concentration of Flak outside berlin
 
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!
 
if you load a B17 up with 1400lbs whats it range, oh i forgot you cant can you least and reach Germany at all, the Best you can get to berlin is 5000lbs and that had to wait for the G model with the EXTRA tanks, something the Lancaster didnt need to bomb Berlin, and thier nothing you B17 fan can do about that either

    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
 
not unless there was a top secret flying boat verson of the B17, try 120 mile NORTH of London
 
 
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
 
so you think Tronso is 40 miles from Trondheim? and you expect us to believe anythuing you say ha ha
 
 
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!
 
in April 1942 Lancaster and haifax's from bomber command attacked the Tripitz in Tronheim Harbor, these Aircraft flew from bases in Norfolk later used by the USAAF (it was the Tronso mission that was flown from scotland but that was a lot further than Trondheim)
 
so wrong again shooter
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/15/2013 4:16:58 AM
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.
So again YOU are right and all official documentation is wrong? and your proof of that? oh yes "shooter says it" as usual
 
 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!
bull and you know it copies of the flight plan exists and clearly shows the range, it was 1900 miles
 
But even if you stipulate the actual range was 1,900 miles round trip, name the Lanc raid that flew that far!
 
Lancasters flew the SAME TARGET from bases that would have been less than 50 miles  from the base the B17 used (and the 50 mile may be further away not closer as thier were a lot less bases in Norfolk at the time)
 
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!
 
No RAF station that operated wellingtons or Hampdens is within a 1200 miles round trip of Trondheim, in fact the ONLY part of the the UK wihin 600 miles of it is the Orkneys FFS
 
 
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!
Wrong, missions to Trondhiem were almost exatactly the same distance whilst the Tronso missions were a lot further
 
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!
 
bioth your facts are completely wong, whilst the B17 wasnt launched from Scotland they also attacked a target a lot closer, the RAF raids on  that SAME Target flew from pretty much the same bases at teh B7 did later,
as to altitude it looks like the raids were carried out at pretty much the same altitudes (approx 15000ft over the target)
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/15/2013 4:40:43 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" target="_blank">http://www.dark-history.eu/avro_lancaster.htm" target="_blank">http://www.dark-history.eu/avro_lancaster.htm" target="_blank">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?
 
yes they do dont they one has the range at 2350 with 12/14000lbs and the other has 3700miles with minimum bomb load, doesnt mean they are not both correct though as the critria are different, but both agree that they were longer ranged than the B17
 
 
 
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.
Or you can argue that keeping the B17 out of the owrst of the fighting kept the crews alive as when targetd agaisnt the same targets the loss of b1s and crew were far higher than te Lanc, a little fact you conviently ignore

 
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!
 
and the fact that one was during the night and one during the day wouldnt effect that figure would it? and that a2a at night was a close range affair that reslted in the SUDDEN loss of te aircraft also wouldnt eccet the number would it?
 
Then there is the previously argued range issue, not disputed.
Not disputed but completely destroyed
This is issue two. Then there is the durrability and reliability issue.
 
gains no evidence to this being more than your imagination and given the reputation of the cyclone I would again say that the Lanc was ahead
This is issue three. Then there is the Lanc's frailty issue.
 
That you have NEVER proved and the dive li mits would indicate otherwise
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!
 
fiction, there is NO evidence that it made ANY difference, especially as the drop order was forward to aft, if thier was an issue then it would have been the other way round, this is anothe of your made up facts
 
This hung bomb issue is a very big deal because hung bombs were a very common thing.
 
actually was a bigger thing in US service, if a bomb hung in a lanc (whic due to the type of hanger was a lot rarer) the navigator (whose job it was to check that all bombs had been dropped) could manualy release the bomb just like a B17 crew could
 
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!
 
er NO there was no hung bomb scerario that would do that this is just fabrication on your part
 
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!
but no such numbers exists   lancaster bomb bays were designed to support the bombs and the for-aft tollerance of weight distribution was far greator than the bomb load, you forget that it wa originally designed with an extra crew member and a 2 gun ventral turret that was deleted that alone provide a big cushion in rear weight distribution, we are not talking B17 here with its wight restrictions
 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/15/2013 9:45:34 AM
The Lancaster used a tray system bomb bay where each bomb had a clear path down.

The Flying Fortress used a stack system. If the the bottom bomb in the stack failed to release all the bombs in the stack were fouled. Extremely dangerous and a very poor design.  
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/15/2013 10:48:22 PM

The point of the link you post is that the Tirpitz was sunk just south of the city!
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/distance-and-azimuths-between-two-sets-coordinates
    Lossiemouth to Troso is 1050 1,059 miles and change from the runway cross point to the center of down town, but the ship is a bit over 33 klicks south west of there and makes the true great circle distance about 1,038 miles. See the above link to find the exact distance! miles as the crow flys Peterborouh to Trondheim is 850 miles, Again, no, you are wrong. See the above link to find the true great circle distance, 912 miles from the form up point to the center of town! so how the hell can you say the Lanc was shorter ranged (and it blows your no mission further clear out of the water
Absolutely! The 30 planes that made that trip, assuming it was round trip and not a shuttle run to Russia, since I can find no refferance to the return trip landing place, were fitted with extra tankage that was never part of the other 7,347 Lancasters! It was absolutely impossible for those other 7,347 Lancs to make that trip. Furthermore, it was flown at an altitude of only 1,000' ASL for all but 225 miles of the entire trip! Then there is the point of the extra powerful 1,710 HP engines and the >72,000 pound Take Off Weight that the other 7,347 Lancs did not have! Those 30 Lancs were the only ones with the ability to do that! Until the advent of the post war Lincoln, 68,000 pounds was the MTO! So you want to comp those 30 Lancs with 8,400+ B-17Gs that would have absolutely no trouble at all making that trip?
Name a Lancaster raid that flew 75% of that distance! 
The Lossiemouth to Tronso mine laying mission clearly more than 75% 
Yes, but those sorties were not flown by any one of the 7,347 standard Lancasters! They were flow by the ~30 "Specials"!
Once again, you cite something done by the ~30 Stripper "Specials" as if it was something that any of the others could have done? Right!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/15/2013 11:11:05 PM

The Lancaster used a tray system bomb bay where each bomb had a clear path down.
And if one of the last row of bombs hung up, the plane was lost.
The Flying Fortress used a stack system. If the the bottom bomb in the stack failed to release all the bombs in the stack were fouled. Extremely dangerous and a very poor design.  
Depends on the size of the bomb. Because the verticle portion of the rack was so far appart near the bottom, the bombs above could still ricochet past. You can see this happen on numerous films. The wobbly bomb is the one that hit the hung bomb below.
So, I would rather have a plane that scattered some of it's bombs, instead of one that crashed when one hung up in the last row. But that is not all. The crew could go out on the B-17's cat walk and free the hung bomb to prevent it from dropping durring landing as a worst case scenario?

 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/15/2013 11:19:43 PM
First this is not true what you say.
 
Second you know nothing of engineering or physics or you would not have made those foolish statements. 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/15/2013 11:59:02 PM

First this is not true what you say. 
Could you please be more specific?
 
Second you know nothing of engineering or physics or you would not have made those foolish statements. 
I assume, and that is a terrible thing to do, but you force me to it, that you are reffering to my statement "that a hung 1000 pound bomb on any of the last three stations would cause the Lancaster to depart controlled flight"?
Do you know why they have a "Range of CG" listed in all the pilot's manuals? Do you know what that range is for the Lancaster and where it is measured from? Did you know that a single 1000 pound bomb hung so far aft of the datum would exceed that margin by about four feet? So if you know so much about engineering please explain to us all exactly how far you think the CG would shift if a 1000 pound bomb hung up in any one of the last three stations!
 

 

 

Please!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/16/2013 12:06:12 AM

First this is not true what you say. 
Could you please be more specific?
 
Second you know nothing of engineering or physics or you would not have made those foolish statements. 
I assume, and that is a terrible thing to do, but you force me to it, that you are reffering to my statement "that a hung 1000 pound bomb on any of the last three stations would cause the Lancaster to depart controlled flight"?
Do you know why they have a "Range of CG" listed in all the pilot's manuals? Do you know what that range is for the Lancaster and where it is measured from? Did you know that a single 1000 pound bomb hung so far aft of the datum would exceed that margin by about four feet? So if you know so much about engineering please explain to us all exactly how far you think the CG would shift if a 1000 pound bomb hung up in any one of the last three stations!
 

 

 

Please!

 
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