PDA

View Full Version : Mossie, a waste of resources?



luftluuver
06-25-2007, 08:00 AM
I don't quite get is what the importance of the night sorties thing. Night mosquitos were introduced after Bomber Command realized Berlin is just a too tough, and largely for propaganda reasons, they've created the light nightly strike force of mosquitos in 1944 that performed militarily insignificant, politically motivated nuisance raids on Berlin, the only questionable gain being enjoyed by the British propaganda ministry. They could have a headline that they've 'bombed' Berlin this night, again. Even if in reality it meant single aircraft dropping single high capacity bombs from high speed and high altitude without the slightest chance of hitting any specific target.

Waste of resources if you ask me, and the sensible German LW commanders must have thought the same, there were never any significant resource spent of combatting non-significant threats like the Mosquito. The Nachtjagd kept concentrating grinding the heavies, which were doing the real damage to cities anyway.
What is this person blathering about? Does he get his history lessons out a cerial box? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

What would he call the LW's 'hit and run' raids on southern England, brilliant? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Forming 2 new JGs (25 and 50) is not significant? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I could go on but I will leave some for the rest of you.

ploughman
06-25-2007, 08:01 AM
A little context please.

Divine-Wind
06-25-2007, 08:53 AM
Nuisance raids?

Well, I suppose for the German Army in the state that it was 1944 onwards, losing munitions dumps, railroads and supply lines, docks and ports, and airfields would be minor nuisances.

ImpStarDuece
06-25-2007, 03:14 PM
Its Captain K, bagging out the Mosquito.

mynameisroland
06-25-2007, 04:32 PM
What a load of Old Balls.

Ive read the author of that comment also state that Bf 109s had no trouble intercepting Mosquitos and that the Mossie Night Fighter wasnt all that effective - both of which is absolute rubbish.

If the Mosquito raids were so innacurate why were they used as pathfinders for the heavies? If the Nachtjagdgeschwadern had no trouble with the Mosquito night intruders prowling over their airbases every night why were they clamouring for the mythical He 219 and the uber Me 262 Night Fighter to be brought in to service? - I cant remembe rthe name of the German pilot, but I have read a great account of a Bf 110 pilot basically sh1tting himself and had to land on a blacked out runway because had they switched on the lights he would have been shot down and killed - what was all the fuss? there was 1 Mosquito that had been hunting him all mission, and he could do nothing about it.

The Mosquito in its main bomber/Night fighter and PR versions was one of the most difficult targets for the Luftwaffe to locate, intercept and shoot down. Its cruising speed at high altitude when loaded with bombs was in the same league if not faster than the Bf 109s.

R_Target
06-25-2007, 04:37 PM
The tone is unmistakable.

LStarosta
06-25-2007, 04:38 PM
Oh Kurfy! Goebbels would be so proud of you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Skunk_438RCAF
06-25-2007, 05:01 PM
The Mosquito was the 1942 equivalent of today's laser guided munitions. The raids on Berlin may have been mostly for propaganda purposes but everything else it did was more significant than what any other single bomber could do.

If the Mosquito was so insignificant, why then did the Luftwaffe credit their pilots with 2 kills for every mossie shot down?

faustnik
06-25-2007, 05:11 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, the Mossie crews had a lot of critical targets, not just nuisance targets?

My impression was that the LW fighter-bomber raids were aimed at tieing up the RAF, which they did very well.

The Mossie raids often had targets that had specific importance, which the crews did an amazing job of hitting.


??????????????


EDIT: Luft, is this a serious thread or you just humping Kurfy's leg again? It's a pretty interesting topic if it is serious, so, I'm hoping...

FritzGryphon
06-25-2007, 05:16 PM
It's like asking: what is better, B-52 or F-16?

The B-52 is better of course, because it has more bombs. 27 times better, to be exact.

Just like yesterday on History channel, Su-27 Versus Butterfly. Turns out butterfly is better. They are invisible to radar, and by weight they are a much better defoliant. Su-27 doesn't even have agent orange!

luftluuver
06-25-2007, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
EDIT: Luft, is this a serious thread or you just humping Kurfy's leg again? It's a pretty interesting topic if it is serious, so, I'm hoping...
Bit of both faustnik.

mhuxt
06-25-2007, 09:40 PM
Kee-ryst.

I really shouldn't let myself be drawn. I may post over in that other thread, if only for the sake of keeping the record straight.

Such a load of old cr*p floating around - including, incidentally, the old "1 Mossie = 2 kills" chestnut.

faustnik
06-25-2007, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
EDIT: Luft, is this a serious thread or you just humping Kurfy's leg again? It's a pretty interesting topic if it is serious, so, I'm hoping...
Bit of both faustnik. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can we turn it to history specific then?

What are some important targets that the Mossies took out? How often were they used on non-specific targets?

BaldieJr
06-25-2007, 10:17 PM
I think the mosquito pilots painted small file cabinets on their planes for each office they leveled. I don't know what they used to represent friendly kills during pow camp raids.

Daiichidoku
06-25-2007, 10:37 PM
luft, you need to read about mosquito operations specifically

you didnt even touch upon FB mossies fanning out over europe and scandanavia, hitting all manner of tgts, not the least of which were LW airbases, day and night

to say nothing of its recce, maritime strike, high speed trans...

perhaps better to ask, "RAF main force not standardized on mossies, a waste of resources?"

Daiichidoku
06-25-2007, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
What are some important targets that the Mossies took out? How often were they used on non-specific targets?

instantly, pickards amiens prison raid

i think gestapo HQ in a few cities

barnes wallis boucing bomb testbed

im sure theres many more specatular raids that have been largely forgotten now



try this:

Terror in the Starboard Seat
http://www.mossie.org/books/reviews/Mark_Huxtable/Terro...oard_Seat_review.htm (http://www.mossie.org/books/reviews/Mark_Huxtable/Terror_in_the_Starboard_Seat_review.htm)


http://www.mossie.org/Mosquito.html

FE_pilot
06-25-2007, 10:49 PM
http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/planepork.jpg

mhuxt
06-25-2007, 10:52 PM
^ lolz

Daiichidoku
06-25-2007, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
luft, you need to read about mosquito operations specifically

bleh

i need to read thread posts better myself, hehe

nevermind!!!

leitmotiv
06-26-2007, 12:47 AM
Well, the kicker, as I am sure LL knew---this is a Mosquito IQ Test clearly---those Mossie "cookie bombers" were used to spoof the German fighter defense controllers into scrambling fighters for dummy raids constituted of them which proceeded to attack cities. Their reason for being was primarily to keep the Germans guessing where the main event would arrive, and improve the chances of the Main Force heavies evading the fighters. The Mosquito "cookie bombers" were not intended to be decisive in their own right. These aircraft were used for a variety of other missions, not only area bombing. One of the more interesting (and one I am itching to try---which had been done earlier by Hampdens) was toss bombing railroad tunnels at night with cookies (see Osprey Mosquito bomber volume).

Waldo.Pepper
06-26-2007, 01:00 AM
I have rarely read such an ill conceived and shallow appraisal of any technology, or plane as the original posting which was quoted.

This book...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/beam%20bombers/PagesfromBeamBombers.jpg

is to my mind THE book on the subject of accurate target marking.

The following are selected quotes that should prove sufficient dispel the absolute nonsense of the original post.

The value that was to be obtained with the precision marking of key objectives was underlined in a particularly pertinent comment express ed by one of No. 109's pilots who was active around the D-Day period. He doubts that there would have been the opportunity for the Allies to invade at that time 'if it had not been for the work of Bomber Command in knocking out those guns on the night of 5/6 June and in hitting the production centres and the launching sites of both the VI flying bomb and the V2 rocket. Targets so small in size yet so big in their significance were able to be attacked with such assured success because we had the means to pinpoint them for concentrated attacks by formations of heavy bombers.'

and...

The remarkably versatile Mosquito was without doubt the long-awaited
answer to No. 109's prayers, a magic carpet, if you will, on which to carry the squadron forward to greater achievements. Where the Wellington was an aircraft dedicated to a bombing role alone, its load-carrying capability dictating speed and manoeuvrability, the smaller, lighter Mosquito was a bomber with a fighter-like performance. Although the plane's bomb load would be less, it would be able to fly higher, further and faster than the current version of the Wellington . The advantages were considerable: the 'Mossie' would not only optimize Oboe's capabilities, it would also reduce the crew size (from a minimum of five to just the pilot and a navigator bomb-aimer) and much improve their chances against anti-aircraft fire and enemy fighters.

and...

Consistently, target-marking was carried out to well within 300 yards
of the aiming point, this was the 'maximum skill error' beyond which crews were taken off operational flying for intensive practice bombing. While typically the achievement with Oboe was considerably under 300 yards, even this sort of precision marking has paled in much later years with the introduction of laser-directed bombs

Charles Harrold has drawn a parallel between the use of Oboe at Essen
and the laser bombing against targets in Iraq. 'I'll never forget,' he said , 'the way that television showed us how our aircraft were able to slip a bomb through a doorway ... incredible! But what our Mosquito crews were able to achieve half a century earlier was to my mind equally remarkable, given the extent of comparative technical know-how. In its day, Oboe was as important and as effective a bombing tool as the laser has proved to be when taking out key targets. As I see it, that's the scale of the debt that we all owe
to Oboe.'

luftluuver
06-26-2007, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
perhaps better to ask, "RAF main force not standardized on mossies, a waste of resources?" Would say the USAAF more than RAF BC. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


faust, an example of a PR mission:

In 1943, a Mossie PR IX flew from Benson to Catania via Regensburg, Vienna, Budapest, Bucharest and Foggia in 6.5 hrs, travelling some 1900mi at an average speed of 292mph.

Yes the Mossie had a high loss rate when first introduced until better tactics could be devised. But, from May 43 to wars end in Europe, Mossie bombers averaged a loss rate of 1.06% on missions to all causes and 1.65% when write-offs are included.

One must also remember that FB Mossies flew at low level and it was not LW fighters that made most of the shoot downs but Flak.

CC Mossies played hell with German shipping dispite the allocation of resources to specilized flak ships to escort the convoys.

Forgot, one V-1 launch site was destroyed for every 39.8t of bombs dropped by Mossies. In comparison, the B-17 it took 164.5t, the B-25 it took 182t and the B-26 it took 219t.

Kurfurst__
06-26-2007, 02:02 AM
Predictable tread, from a predictable poster.

I wonder when Ratsack, Xiabolo and mynameisroland is going to turn up. Then we only need Megile's and tagert's input. 30 pager, be sure. At least it will make a nice quarantine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

luftluuver
06-26-2007, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Predictable tread, from a predictable poster.

I wonder when Ratsack, Xiabolo and mynameisroland is going to turn up. Then we only need Megile's and tagert's input. 30 pager, be sure. At least it will make a nice quarantine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Yes predictable it will go south, real quick, since you have turned up after your forced Ubi holiday Kapt K.

mynameisroland
06-26-2007, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Predictable tread, from a predictable poster.

I wonder when Ratsack, Xiabolo and mynameisroland is going to turn up. Then we only need Megile's and tagert's input. 30 pager, be sure. At least it will make a nice quarantine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Welcome back from your ban Kurfy,

I think you'll find that I have already posted in this thread but I guess you missed that falling over yourself to post some smart a** remark as soon as you got let loose from your 'holiday'.

stathem
06-26-2007, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
perhaps better to ask, "RAF main force not standardized on mossies, a waste of resources?" Would say the USAAF more than RAF BC. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


faust, an example of a PR mission:

In 1943, a Mossie PR IX flew from Benson to Catania via Regensburg, Vienna, Budapest, Bucharest and Foggia in 6.5 hrs, travelling some 1900mi at an average speed of 292mph.

Yes the Mossie had a high loss rate when first introduced until better tactics could be devised. But, from May 43 to wars end in Europe, Mossie bombers averaged a loss rate of 1.06% on missions to all causes and 1.65% when write-offs are included.

One must also remember that FB Mossies flew at low level and it was not LW fighters that made most of the shoot downs but Flak.

CC Mossies played hell with German shipping dispite the allocation of resources to specilized flak ships to escort the convoys.

Forgot, one V-1 launch site was destroyed for every 39.8t of bombs dropped by Mossies. In comparison, the B-17 it took 164.5t, the B-25 it took 182t and the B-26 it took 219t. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the subject of long PR Mossie trips, Ron Foster took his Benson Mossie non-stop from Lossiemouth to Moscow carrying diplomatic bags for Churchill. Check the direct route and see how much enemy held territory he had to cross - and then evade Russian fighters at the other end.

In Moscow the Russians took it apart to see how it worked and then put it back together again before he set off back.

The most amazing part - he came back most of the way on one engine and with no oxygen.

luftluuver
06-26-2007, 03:07 AM
There was also the BOAC Mossie flights to Sweden.

Brain32
06-26-2007, 04:22 AM
This thread is sad. It truely shows in the peak of it's evolution why is this place called "the UBI ZOO". This is third thread in last week or two that is opened for sole reason of personal attack on one forum member.
So this is the way we're going... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Aaron_GT
06-26-2007, 06:12 AM
The Mosquito was so useless apparently Hap Arnold was reportedly rather upset that De Havilland lacked the resources to set up production in the USA for the USAAF. (Some some subassemblies were made by Canadian subsidiaries of US firms, and a few made in the USA).

The genius of the Mosquito was not that it used non strategic resources (balsa was actually not easy to procure and transport to the UK, and the spruce came from Canada, and even then lack of the original spruce type required substitution). The real genius was that it used non strategic workers - i.e. it used workers skilled in furniture rather than metal workers who were in short supply and needed to make Lancasters and Spitfires. The complexity of the wings of the latter was the reason why it was easier to produce Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain.

In the end the Mosquito exceeded expectations of a light bomber with a 1000lb load, and was capable of lifting 8000lbs of bombs, except there was nowhere to actually put them all, and stability with 4000lbs was not the best (partly centre of gravity issues, partly the bomb shackles).


One must also remember that FB Mossies flew at low level and it was not LW fighters that made most of the shoot downs but Flak.

On low level missions hazards such as bird strikes, accidentally dropped bombs, and terrain also claimed a lot of aircraft. The first two were partly solved by flying line abreast as then a prematurely dropped bomb or a scared flock of birds would not be right in the path of subsequent aircraft.
Right - lunch break over, back to work!

Kurfurst__
06-26-2007, 06:24 AM
Just a reminder, the original point was about the noctural nuisance rads over Berlin from 1944 performed by Mosquitos after BC's heavy losses in the spring of 1944. Not that Mosquitos were a waste of resources, but that using Mosquitos to such nuisance raids was a waste of resources and manpower.

Naturally, such small issues rarely prohibiting some with a desire for flamethreads. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LStarosta
06-26-2007, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
This thread is sad. It truely shows in the peak of it's evolution why is this place called "the UBI ZOO". This is third thread in last week or two that is opened for sole reason of personal attack on one forum member.
So this is the way we're going... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

You're the one who has unintelligible babble for a signature.

LStarosta
06-26-2007, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Just a reminder, the original point was about the noctural nuisance rads over Berlin from 1944 performed by Mosquitos after BC's heavy losses in the spring of 1944. Not that Mosquitos were a waste of resources, but that using Mosquitos to such nuisance raids was a waste of resources and manpower.

Naturally, such small issues rarely prohibiting some with a desire for flamethreads. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



Yeah, so Kurfy, what would you call Normandy? A beach party? Dresden a TPing gone sour? Battle of the Bulge a snowball fight? Tobruk was just a fistfight broken out in a sandbox? Hell, Montecassino was just a game of King of the Hill, right?

Face it. Germany got raped. Every day. Every night. And they lost the war. What kind of euphemism can you think of for that? Or will you argue that Germany finally saw the fault in their ways and simply surrendered of its own free will?

Cut the bull.

ImpStarDuece
06-26-2007, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Just a reminder, the original point was about the noctural nuisance rads over Berlin from 1944 performed by Mosquitos after BC's heavy losses in the spring of 1944. Not that Mosquitos were a waste of resources, but that using Mosquitos to such nuisance raids was a waste of resources and manpower.

Naturally, such small issues rarely prohibiting some with a desire for flamethreads. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hardly a waste of manpower, as the LNSF Mosquito raids used a very small fraction of Bomber Commands' resources and consumed a proportionatly greater fraction of the German resources by keeping night fighter squadrons, AAA and search light busy, destroying German houses, factories and other installations and preventing German workers from sleeping.

In 1944 the LNSF Mosquitos made almost 20,000 sorties at a loss rate of under 1%, dropping over 2,000 lbs of bombs per sortie.

Furthermore, the night time Mossies also marked targets and acted as signals aircraft, bombed flak and radar installations, acted as decoys for the larger formations by dropping window, flares and false target markers, ran long range interdiction and intruder missions and dropped mines.

This is, of course, not forgetting the Mossies role in daylight strikes on Noball targets (which it required less than half the tonnage of any other Allied omber to destroy), on targets in the lead up to Normandy, on shipping, on submarine pens and naval bases and precision daylight strikes against designated targets and in disturbing Nazi parades.

Nor to overlook its role as a daylight and night time reconnisance aircraft, where it also served very well.

Finally, and here is the kicker, the LNSF was formed in June 1943, and, strangely enough, went after a wide variety of targets, in a wide variety of German cities (and even some French ones) with a wide variety of weapons ( apart from the single 4,000 lbs MC and HC 'cookies they also flew with 4 x 500 lbs or 6 x 500lbs in Avro carrier and occasionally with 2 x 500 lbs and 1 x 1,000 lbs, as well as assorted incendiary markers of various weights)

hop2002
06-26-2007, 08:34 AM
Just a reminder, the original point was about the noctural nuisance rads over Berlin from 1944 performed by Mosquitos after BC's heavy losses in the spring of 1944. Not that Mosquitos were a waste of resources, but that using Mosquitos to such nuisance raids was a waste of resources and manpower.

That's an interesting theory, especially as you claim that the V-2, which flung far less explosive at far higher cost, was a sensible use of resources.

Bowyer and Sharp in Mosquito give figures for the LNSF and 8 Group Mosquito night bomber operations as 26,255 sorties, 26,000 tons of bombs, 108 aircraft lost, 88 written off due to damage.

In comparison, the Germans fired just over 1,400 V-2s at Britain. Just over 1,000 actually reached the country, and just over half actually hit London. They delivered less than a ton of explosives each.

Each V-2 cost far more than a Mosquito, and of course all the 1,400 fired were lost.

So for a far greater cost, the Germans managed to deliver less than 500 tons on a built up area, and a similar amount on open countryside.

And yet the Mosquito was a waste of resources, the V-2 was not. Amazing.

Ratsack
06-26-2007, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just a reminder, the original point was about the noctural nuisance rads over Berlin from 1944 performed by Mosquitos after BC's heavy losses in the spring of 1944. Not that Mosquitos were a waste of resources, but that using Mosquitos to such nuisance raids was a waste of resources and manpower.

That's an interesting theory, especially as you claim that the V-2, which flung far less explosive at far higher cost, was a sensible use of resources.

Bowyer and Sharp in Mosquito give figures for the LNSF and 8 Group Mosquito night bomber operations as 26,255 sorties, 26,000 tons of bombs, 108 aircraft lost, 88 written off due to damage.

In comparison, the Germans fired just over 1,400 V-2s at Britain. Just over 1,000 actually reached the country, and just over half actually hit London. They delivered less than a ton of explosives each.

Each V-2 cost far more than a Mosquito, and of course all the 1,400 fired were lost.

So for a far greater cost, the Germans managed to deliver less than 500 tons on a built up area, and a similar amount on open countryside.

And yet the Mosquito was a waste of resources, the V-2 was not. Amazing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's better than that. The V-2 did all of the above at only a fraction of the range of the Mosquito.

Even Speer recognized the V-2 as pure folly.

Ratsack

neural_dream
06-26-2007, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Hardly a waste of manpower, as the LNSF Mosquito raids used a very small fraction of Bomber Commands' resources and consumed a proportionatly greater fraction of the German resources by keeping night fighter squadrons, AAA and search light busy, destroying German houses, factories and other installations and preventing German workers from sleeping.

In 1944 the LNSF Mosquitos made almost 20,000 sorties at a loss rate of under 1%, dropping over 2,000 lbs of bombs per sortie.

Furthermore, the night time Mossies also marked targets and acted as signals aircraft, bombed flak and radar installations, acted as decoys for the larger formations by dropping window, flares and false target markers, ran long range interdiction and intruder missions and dropped mines.

This is, of course, not forgetting the Mossies role in daylight strikes on Noball targets (which it required less than half the tonnage of any other Allied omber to destroy), on targets in the lead up to Normandy, on shipping, on submarine pens and naval bases and precision daylight strikes against designated targets and in disturbing Nazi parades.

Nor to overlook its role as a daylight and night time reconnisance aircraft, where it also served very well.

Finally, and here is the kicker, the LNSF was formed in June 1943, and, strangely enough, went after a wide variety of targets, in a wide variety of German cities (and even some French ones) with a wide variety of weapons ( apart from the single 4,000 lbs MC and HC 'cookies they also flew with 4 x 500 lbs or 6 x 500lbs in Avro carrier and occasionally with 2 x 500 lbs and 1 x 1,000 lbs, as well as assorted incendiary markers of various weights)

I don't think I've ever read a post of yours which is not excellent.

Deadmeat313
06-26-2007, 08:54 AM
I don't really want to take part in a flame thread - even in defence of my beloved Mossie, but I will post this cool factoid of V-2 goodness :

When the Allies examined captured documents of German V-2 missile launches after the war, they discovered that the Third Reich had for some reason targetted missiles at Lowestoft, on the southeastern English coast.

The reason for this target selection is not clear, but it seems that every rocket launched at Lowestoft must have either landed in the sea or in the flat marshlands of the Broads, leaving the citizens of the town entirely unaware that they were being subjected to ballistic missile bombardment.

I thought that was cool. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


T.

Deadmeat313
06-26-2007, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Hardly a waste of manpower, as the LNSF Mosquito raids used a very small fraction of Bomber Commands' resources and consumed a proportionatly greater fraction of the German resources by keeping night fighter squadrons, AAA and search light busy, destroying German houses, factories and other installations and preventing German workers from sleeping.

In 1944 the LNSF Mosquitos made almost 20,000 sorties at a loss rate of under 1%, dropping over 2,000 lbs of bombs per sortie.

Furthermore, the night time Mossies also marked targets and acted as signals aircraft, bombed flak and radar installations, acted as decoys for the larger formations by dropping window, flares and false target markers, ran long range interdiction and intruder missions and dropped mines.

This is, of course, not forgetting the Mossies role in daylight strikes on Noball targets (which it required less than half the tonnage of any other Allied omber to destroy), on targets in the lead up to Normandy, on shipping, on submarine pens and naval bases and precision daylight strikes against designated targets and in disturbing Nazi parades.

Nor to overlook its role as a daylight and night time reconnisance aircraft, where it also served very well.

Finally, and here is the kicker, the LNSF was formed in June 1943, and, strangely enough, went after a wide variety of targets, in a wide variety of German cities (and even some French ones) with a wide variety of weapons ( apart from the single 4,000 lbs MC and HC 'cookies they also flew with 4 x 500 lbs or 6 x 500lbs in Avro carrier and occasionally with 2 x 500 lbs and 1 x 1,000 lbs, as well as assorted incendiary markers of various weights)

I don't think I've ever read a post of yours which is not excellent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Agree 100% about ImpStarDeuce. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif


Keep up the good work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif


T.

Daiichidoku
06-26-2007, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:

That's an interesting theory, especially as you claim that the V-2, which flung far less explosive at far higher cost, was a sensible use of resources.

In comparison, the Germans fired just over 1,400 V-2s at Britain. Just over 1,000 actually reached the country, and just over half actually hit London. They delivered less than a ton of explosives each.

Each V-2 cost far more than a Mosquito, and of course all the 1,400 fired were lost.

So for a far greater cost, the Germans managed to deliver less than 500 tons on a built up area, and a similar amount on open countryside.

And yet the Mosquito was a waste of resources, the V-2 was not. Amazing.

to be fair, please revise this, including V2s on Antwep at least, by far the greatest number fell there

cant agree more though, that mossies were big time value

hop2002
06-26-2007, 09:40 AM
Adding Antwerp actually makes the V-2 look worse, because it was a smaller target than London, and an even smaller proportion of V-2s actually hit.

I believe just over 1,600 V-2s were fired at Antwerp, about 500 hit the city.

In total, over 6,000 V-2s were built, about 3,200 fired in anger, of which around a third hit their targets (even though the vast majority of the targets were quite large cities)

So the entire V-2 programme managed to deliver less than 20% of the tonnage of the night Mosquito bombers, at a cost of over 6,000 missiles. And the accuracy they achieved was so poor even London, the largest target in the world, could only be hit by about 40% of the missiles aimed at it.

faustnik
06-26-2007, 10:29 AM
Luft,

If you have time, maybe you could post a "clean" thread on the Mossie. It's such an interesting concept and subject.

Daiichidoku
06-26-2007, 11:07 AM
no need, Faust

jsut re-claim this thread in the name of sanity, by posting only sanity

peer pressure! muahahahah!

Daiichidoku
06-26-2007, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Adding Antwerp actually makes the V-2 look worse, because it was a smaller target than London, and an even smaller proportion of V-2s actually hit.

I believe just over 1,600 V-2s were fired at Antwerp, about 500 hit the city.

In total, over 6,000 V-2s were built, about 3,200 fired in anger, of which around a third hit their targets (even though the vast majority of the targets were quite large cities)

So the entire V-2 programme managed to deliver less than 20% of the tonnage of the night Mosquito bombers, at a cost of over 6,000 missiles. And the accuracy they achieved was so poor even London, the largest target in the world, could only be hit by about 40% of the missiles aimed at it.

ty hop http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

clearly, the V2 was a bust, stategically and tactcally

but one cannot deny its psych impact, and its tech pioneering

a great deal today was possible from the development and subsequent study of V2s


but still...6,000 V2s, or 6,000 mossies?
hmmm tough one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

hop2002
06-26-2007, 11:36 AM
Without doubt the V-2 was a marvellous technical achievement. It was just a bit silly to stick a relatively small bomb on the end of them and fire them at enemy cities.

Here's what RV Jones had to say about the V-2, which he spent a lot of time investigating during the war:

The protagonists for the development of very long range rockets would probably have, in Britain at any rate, to meet the criticism that it would not be worth the effort expended. The A4 has already shown us that our enemies are not restrained by such considerations and have thereby made themselves leaders in a technique which sooner or later will be regarded as one of the masterpieces of human endeavour when it comes to be applied to the exploration of Space.

faustnik
06-26-2007, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Without doubt the V-2 was a marvellous technical achievement. It was just a bit silly to stick a relatively small bomb on the end of them and fire them at enemy cities.

Here's what RV Jones had to say about the V-2, which he spent a lot of time investigating during the war:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The protagonists for the development of very long range rockets would probably have, in Britain at any rate, to meet the criticism that it would not be worth the effort expended. The A4 has already shown us that our enemies are not restrained by such considerations and have thereby made themselves leaders in a technique which sooner or later will be regarded as one of the masterpieces of human endeavour when it comes to be applied to the exploration of Space. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the Germans were certainly not above wasting money, time and scarce resources on pointless wonderweapon projects. He got that 100% correct.

Daiichidoku
06-26-2007, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
No, the Germans were certainly not above wasting money, time and scarce resources on pointless wonderweapon projects. He got that 100% correct.

wartime economy

at least for a few years, one only has to hum a few bars and fake it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

wastage is nothign new for any nation though

USA, wealthy as it was, squandered 20(?) million $ on the XP-75 program, for example

M_Gunz
06-26-2007, 01:20 PM
I think that I saw two posts that actually addressed to some degree what K says he claimed
originally. And I picked up some other good stuff, not related to night raids on Berlin
in 1944.

But what does V2 have to do with the subject and not things that K wrote before?

Both Mossie night raids on Berlin and V2's hitting cities were immense psychological attacks
on enemy and boost for the side at home which is not something measured in destroyed targets
but still of very real value.

How many war bonds (read:investment) were sold as result of Doolittle's raid on Japan?

faustnik
06-26-2007, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

How many war bonds (read:investment) were sold as result of Doolittle's raid on Japan?

Great point!!!

Daiichidoku
06-26-2007, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

How many war bonds (read:investment) were sold as result of Doolittle's raid on Japan?


i hope yo uhave figures...cuz i dont imagine it was such a huge boost...im sure war bonds were moving at a tidy pace, ever since dec8 41 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


the real vaule of the doolittle raid, of course, was psych impact on JP (and FINALLY getting a lick in, USA needed it badly at that point) but perhaps moreso the allocation of home defence forses, never considered necessary previous to that

M_Gunz
06-26-2007, 06:12 PM
If I had numbers I would have given them which is why I stated an opinion only.

Go watch "Flags of Our Fathers" and find out something about Bond Drives and cost of that war.
If the bonds were just selling so easily then they never would have had so many bond drives.
Also you can go read on the Doolittle raid how much morale boost that was in the US so soon
after Pearl Harbor. People work harder and give more on the chance to win or even just seeing
that what they do has meaning.