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       3/29/2013 2:48:44 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!
But the MAJORITY of USAAF raids didn't see much of either when they did they suffered badly

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!
how many time must it be pointed out that is for the SAME target, a milk run to France cannot be compared to the Ruhr
 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.    
 
pointless trying to discuss anything with you, you are so closed minded and up yourself that you incapable of understanding that your basic premise is faulty

 
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!     
  The RAF agree with me so what is your point?
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.
No it just follows that you cannot follow basic facts
 
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!
Yet by 44 the USAAF were using the exact same techniques as the RAF why is that if the USAAF methods were so superior?
 
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!),
another thought process failure, Flak at this height didn't target planes they barraged a point and let the planes fly into it
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!
you haven't a clue have you
 
 Learn to live with it.
Is this last comment just to rile? because its working, its like the troll who uses FACT to finish his "I think this" type post, I have come to read it as "shooter hasn't a clue but will state it continuously until everyone either stops posting or he gets banned"
 
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!
then its another case of the book disagreeing with shooters memory
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/29/2013 3:18:39 PM

Incorrect answers to all. Your knowledge is non-existent.
Since the questions required yes or no answers, how can you judge whether they are right or wrong from the so limitted context? Right!
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.
Again, a perfectly truthful answer to your original question. Be a little more honest with what you want and I'll try to be more forthcomming.
You will not be able to cut and paste or lie your way through it.
Note that I did not even try.

I gave you true answers, would you like explanations?







Do not lie about this. See above #1 for reply.


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/29/2013 3:20:23 PM

They only made two of the 58 mm/77s and they did not work.
What does that have to do with WHY they even tried to build them? 

 






 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/29/2013 3:27:06 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
Nice link, but his plane may have been constructed after the one in Sweetmans fotos? I do not know. 
 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 Acording to that book, the plating was riveted on and not removable and there were no inspection plates. So if the later planes had them, they must have known there was a problem? Don't you think?
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 Actually it did and had a diagram to illistrate the process to boot!


 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/29/2013 4:09:24 PM
Nice link, but his plane may have been constructed after the one in Sweetmans fotos?
Nope were there on the Manchester and all model Lancasters
 I do not know. that is obvious and usual
 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 Acording to that book, the plating was riveted on and not removable and there were no inspection plates.
I doubt that a 50 page book goes into that depth In fact I not sure I believe you actually bought it and not just seen the cover on Amazon
 So if the later planes had them, they must have known there was a problem? Don't you think?
not later ALL, and yes they knew bomb hangs were an issue it was a common problem since the first bombers, and I cannot think why you believe they would make the bomb bay inaccessible given that this was a known issue
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 Actually it did and had a diagram to illistrate the process to boot!
not if you actually understand what its saying
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/29/2013 4:49:44 PM
When I ask for a answer, I do not need to spell out with such as you, that you must prove you know.
 
And since from your very answer you informed me that you do not know, and lack the wit to know that you proved this to me, then why should I waste time accepting your claims which apriori from the answer you gave, are already proved as false?   

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.
Again, a perfectly truthful answer to your original question. Be a little more honest with what you want and I'll try to be more forthcomming.
You will not be able to cut and paste or lie your way through it.
Note that I did not even try.

I gave you true answers, would you like explanations?







Do not lie about this. See above #1 for reply.




 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/2/2013 9:33:02 PM

Incorrect answers to all. Your knowledge is non-existent.

I gave you true answers, would you like explanations?
Do not lie about this.
From the information given how can you possibly judge if the answers, "Yes!" in this case are true or false? You asked if I knew what those terms mean? I answered Yes! How on earth can you etrapolate those answers in to "False statements? Seems more than a little prejududitial to me?

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/2/2013 9:49:11 PM

what not on any of the 50 whole pages that book contains, does it even show the fuselage floor above the bays,
Well, yes it does show the floor and the total absence of ports/hatches, or any other means to access the bomb bay in flight! See pages 14-15-16, 20-21, to see the total absence for your self!
 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 Yes, if you consider the fact that they were rivitted together and you would have to drill the rivits to do so!
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 Well, again you are wrong, because it does state that such an excursion would lead to the loss of the plane and even has a chart showing exactly how this would happen!
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
Well, no, it seems that it is you who is not looking at the links you post, do not understand the charts posted at those links, or have read the pertenent parts of those links that prove my point beyond any doubt! It's only fault is that it does not mention the Lancaster, or any other plane by name!       
 
 This is true! Day light raids are far and away the most dangerous, at least according to the RAF!
Not again
Just according to the RAF-BC! 
 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 Just repeating RAF and RAF-BC writen reports and public statements!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/2/2013 10:21:30 PM

Nice link, but his plane may have been constructed after the one in Sweetmans fotos?
Nope were there on the Manchester and all model LancastersI note that the pictures of the last three bomb shakles in the Lanc's Bomb bay in the pics posted below are totally absent of inspection ports, access pannels, or any and ALL other means to access the bomb bay in flight! But I imagine that the ancidotal story in the previous link may apply to a later made plane than the one in the picture and the pics in the book I mentioned!

      >>.="" com="">http://www.flickr.com/photos/last_lightning/7716394920/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/last_lightning/7716394920/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/last_lightning/7716394920/
    See these pictures for absolute proof that there were no inspection/access ports in this particular plane!
   
 
those plates were REMOVABLE Acording to that book, the plating was riveted on and not removable and there were no inspection plates.

I doubt that a 50 page book goes into that depth In fact I not sure I believe you actually bought it and not just seen the cover on Amazon
  I bought it! I always do when I get a recomendation from anyone who disputes anything I state! Now think about the picture above, since it is also absent any sort of port into the bomb bay!

 So if the later planes had them, they must have known there was a problem? Don't you think?

not later ALL, and yes they knew bomb hangs were an issue it was a common problem since the first bombers, and I cannot think why you believe they would make the bomb bay inaccessible given that this was a known issue
  But in at least the planes used to illistrate that book and the plane in that picture did not have ANY access to the bay in flight! None what so ever! So then it must be as stated above. If they did change it, or did not, but the proofs so far have no access what so ever!

So we have two possabilities; 1. They never got ports and they were totaly ignorant of the extent of the problem, or 2. They did not have ports when the planes in the book and the plane in the picture above, but became aware of the problem and modified the planes to have ports in the flore to reliese hung bombs!

 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/2/2013 11:35:09 PM
When I read your explanations about such simple things things as roll and turn, how aircraft trim, how aircraft control inputs work, how a bomber you NEVER have seen was laid out. Seems obvious that your true knowledge is non-existent.  



Incorrect answers to all. Your knowledge is non-existent.

I gave you true answers, would you like explanations?
Do not lie about this.
From the information given how can you possibly judge if the answers, "Yes!" in this case are true or false? You asked if I knew what those terms mean? I answered Yes! How on earth can you etrapolate those answers in to "False statements? Seems more than a little prejududitial to me?
 
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