PDA

View Full Version : I think that we need to discuss the Mosquito.



MB_Avro_UK
01-22-2008, 04:05 PM
Hi all,

The Mosquito that we have in il2 is a 'mid war' 1943 version and does not represent the full success of this aircraft.

Here's a few facts:

A Mosquito IX also holds the record for the most missions flown by an Allied bomber in the Second World War. LR503, "F for Freddie", first serving with 109 and subsequently 105 Squadron, flew <span class="ev_code_BLUE">213</span> sorties during the war, only to crash on 10 May 1945, two days after VE Day at Calgary airport during a victory tour, an accident attributed to pilot error.

And another:

From early 1944 the Mosquito also operated in the bomber support role with Bomber Command's 100 Group, their task being to harass the Luftwaffe NachtJagd (night fighters) attacking the bomber streams over Germany. Some 258 Luftwaffe night fighters were claimed destroyed by the Group, for the loss of some 70 Mosquitoes. The omniprescence of the potent night fighter threat led to what the Luftwaffe crews dubbed "Mosquitoschreck" (Mosquito scare), as the German aircrews were never sure when or where they may come under attack from the marauding 100 Group fighters and indirectly led to a high proportion of both aircraft wastage from crashes as night fighters hurried in to land to avoid the Mosquito threat (real or imagined).

And another:

One of the higher risk uses of the fighter-bomber Mosquito FB VI was by 21 Sqn., 464(RAAF) Squadron and 487(NZ) Squadron of No. 2 Group, 2nd Tactical Air Force in Operation Jericho, a mission to destroy the walls and guards' quarters of Amiens prison to allow members of the French Resistance to escape. In the aftermath of the operation the Mosquito of Group Captain Percy Pickard was shot down.

And another:

On 11 April 1944, after a request by Dutch resistance workers, six Mosquito FB VIs of No. 613 (City of Manchester) Squadron made a pinpoint attack at rooftop height on the Gestapo records centre in The Hague, Netherlands. Their bombs, a mixture of high explosive and incendiary, went in through the doors and windows and the incriminating records were burned. Only persons in the building were killed"”nearby civilians in a bread queue were unharmed.

And another:

The Mosquito inspired admiration from all quarters, including the Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, Hermann Göing. Göing was due to address a parade in Berlin in the morning of 30 January 1943, commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Nazis' being voted into power. The low level attack of three 105 Squadron Mosquito B Mk. IV on the main Berlin broadcasting station[3] put Reichsmarschall Göing off the air for more than an hour, as he was about to launch into a scheduled speech.

The Reichsmarschall was not amused:

" In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy.

The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that?

"” Hermann Göing, January 1943.


And another:

Unarmed high-level photo recon.


Was the Mosquito the most versatile and successful aircraft of WW2? Perhaps it was...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Just thought that I would post this as it seems that the Mosquito needs to be recognised as an exceptional aircraft.


Best Regards,
MB_de Havilland.

Metatron_123
01-22-2008, 04:49 PM
Yeah... I guess it was quite good. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

jolly_magpie
01-22-2008, 04:58 PM
Now if only that darn DM bug in the Stbd wing could be fixed. Ah, well!!

HuninMunin
01-22-2008, 05:03 PM
It shure is a strong contender for most successfull aircraft of WW2.
If we could agree on any level as what successfull means, that is.

Most versatile?
I'm not quite as shure.
The Ju-88 comes to mind.

leitmotiv
01-22-2008, 05:06 PM
Truly revolutionary. It was the only WWII light bomber which lived up to the expectations of the pre-war enthusiasts who foresaw an unarmed light bomber which was able to operate deep in enemy territory without escort. All its antecedents failed in this roll: the Soviet SB, the Blenheim, the Do 17, and the Italian Breda 88. The Ju 88 would likely have been as successful if the original design formula had been followed instead of turning it into an armed dive bomber with all the extra metal that required to stress it for diving. The closest to the original design was the Ju 88S which came in late 1943---if they had had it in 1940---hoo boy. That the Mosquito recce/bomber was able to operate in their various versions with near impunity from 1941 until the advent of the Me 262 in 1944 is amazing in retrospect. Add to the above its accidental radar stealthiness due to its wooden construction and superb streamlining, and you had an airplane radically ahead of its time.

Jasko76
01-22-2008, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
A Mosquito IX also holds the record for the most missions flown by an Allied bomber in the Second World War. LR503, "F for Freddie", first serving with 109 and subsequently 105 Squadron, flew <span class="ev_code_BLUE">213</span> sorties during the war...

I read somewhere that a B-26, "Flak Bait" survived 202 missions. Kind of contradicts the perception of B-26 being a widow maker.

Anyway, Mossie was an outstanding aircraft. Pitty there are no airworthy examples left.

MB_Avro_UK
01-22-2008, 05:31 PM
Hi all,

But the Mosquito had some drawbacks. I spoke with a Mosquito pilot some time ago and he said that it was 'slightly tricky' to bail out from.

In other words,bailing out was very difficult http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Also, it was very difficult to control if an engine was lost on take off.

But it was one of the safest RAF aircraft to fly as losses were very low due to it's high speed performance.

It also flew unarmed reconnaissance missions due to it's high speed.

Did other aircraft fly unarmed reconnaisance missions? I seem to remember that versions of Spitfires were used by the PRU?

Any others? Something reminds me that the P-38 was used for unarmed reconnaisance but I maybe wrong.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro (a.k.a. de Havilland).

berg417448
01-22-2008, 05:41 PM
The unarmed recon versions of the P-38 were called the F-4 and F-5.
http://www.33rdprs.org/html/webops/PatEye.html

Here is an interesting article about an American Photo Recon pilot who flew the Spitfire:

http://dwb.thenewstribune.com/soundlife/story/6437565p-5736239c.html

leitmotiv
01-22-2008, 06:34 PM
All long-range, high-altitude strategic recce Spitfires were unarmed, but the low-altitude ones for tactical recon were armed. The Ki-46 "Dinah" was unarmed. The high-altitude Ju 86R recon plane was unarmed.

Bewolf
01-23-2008, 03:16 AM
There need to be more Mosquitos in the game. I like it. Catching it is a challange and shooting one down pretty rewarding. on the other hands its a joy to fly and doo some ground pounding with it. Later versions would be more then welcome.

mynameisroland
01-23-2008, 03:45 AM
The 1st V1 shot down was claimed by a Mosquito Night Fighter iirc. I'd love a N.F XII in IL2, it would be like an all weather fighter, really ahead of its time and definitely a Uber plane given that it could kill any opposition aircraft in any weather conditions.

Sergio_101
01-23-2008, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
There need to be more Mosquitos in the game. I like it. Catching it is a challange and shooting one down pretty rewarding. on the other hands its a joy to fly and doo some ground pounding with it. Later versions would be more then welcome.

It beat the B-26 Flak Bait by 6 missions......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flak_Bait

but Flak Bait is still around, and she's buitiful.
Bummer she's not completely assembled.

Sergio

stansdds
01-23-2008, 04:01 AM
A later mark Mosquito would be a great addition to the Il2 series, doubt that it will happen.

The B-26 earned it's reputation among pilots in training. The B-26's wing simply did not allow for really slow approaches. Pilots attempting the traditional slow approach ended up stalling and crashing. The B-26 also used props with electrically controlled blade pitch instead of the traditional hydraulic operation. If the ground crew did not maintain the motors properly, the props would be uncontrollable. It was a revolutionary aircraft for the USAAF, but ultimately it was one of the better medium bombers.

Bewolf
01-23-2008, 04:16 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
There need to be more Mosquitos in the game. I like it. Catching it is a challange and shooting one down pretty rewarding. on the other hands its a joy to fly and doo some ground pounding with it. Later versions would be more then welcome.

The B26 would be a blast to have as well. A plane after my taste for sure, takes practice to master but then rocks hard. And the bomber with one of the safest records, AFAIK.

It beat the B-26 Flak Bait by 6 missions......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flak_Bait

but Flak Bait is still around, and she's buitiful.
Bummer she's not completely assembled.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I'd love to have the B26 in game. Fast and one of the most surviveable Bombers of the war. And great looks on top of it.

luftluuver
01-23-2008, 04:20 AM
Erhard Milch, the deputy head of the Luftwaffe, said about the Mosquito:

"<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I fear that one day the British will start attacking with masses of this aircraft</span>"

mynameisroland
01-23-2008, 04:33 AM
Was the Me 410 a German equivalent ? Or was it better than the Mosquito - because it was German, had DB engines and was made by Messerschimt - to pre empt you know who

buzzsaw1939
01-23-2008, 04:37 AM
After reading this thread, I dicided to check it out,..not bad, little hot on approach, tried one mission, one hole in left wing, must have got the controls, rolling left, lost it on approach, even with higher speed, kinda fun plane! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

luftluuver
01-23-2008, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

But the Mosquito had some drawbacks. I spoke with a Mosquito pilot some time ago and he said that it was 'slightly tricky' to bail out from.

In other words, bailing out was very difficult http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Did he explain why?

The top of the canopy could be jettisoned, so maybe it was clearing the fin/rudder.

Ratsack
01-23-2008, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by Jasko76:
...Kind of contradicts the perception of B-26 being a widow maker...

I thought the B-26 ended up with a very favourable sortie / loss ratio, once crews got used to the high wing loading.

I recall reading somewhere that the early crews referred to it as the w*h*o*r*e, because of the apparent smallness of the wings. These gave it 'no visible means of support'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Ratsack

luftluuver
01-23-2008, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Was the Me 410 a German equivalent ? Or was it better than the Mosquito - because it was German, had DB engines and was made by Messerschimt - to pre empt you know who
The Russians tested the Mossie and the 410 and preferred the 410. No reason given that I remember.

Viper2005_
01-23-2008, 04:43 AM
The A-20C is a pretty good flyable surrogate for a Mosquito B.IV, though it can only carry ~ 2200 lbs.

If you climb to about 7 km then they both have the same level speed according to IL2C. At high altitudes you can run the A-20C at 110% power with closed radiators in much the same way as you can with a P-47.

Level bombing from high altitude makes life much safer.

Of course you only need 1 bombsight equipped aircraft in a formation to attack an area target, which potentially greatly increases the variety of ordnance you can deliver...

mynameisroland
01-23-2008, 04:43 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 MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

But the Mosquito had some drawbacks. I spoke with a Mosquito pilot some time ago and he said that it was 'slightly tricky' to bail out from.

In other words, bailing out was very difficult http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Did he explain why?

The top of the canopy could be jettisoned, so maybe it was clearing the fin/rudder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was because the hole was only big enough for one at a time, so the Navigator jumped first leaving the pilot wringing his wrists.

arthursmedley
01-23-2008, 04:56 AM
Bailing out of mosquito was notoriously difficult as the cockpit can be described as 'intimate.'

The pilot could get out of top escape hatch by treading on navigators head then get taken out by fin/rudder assembly whilst navigator went through entrance hatch on his side of floor-hopefully.

Addition of radar set on navs. side meant pilot exit this way even more tricky.

Some crews preferred canadian built mossies as they were approx. an inch wider around cockpit.

MB; with the benefit of hindsight would'nt the RAF have been better off building thousands of mossies instead of slow vunerable 7 man vermots.

By 1945 Mossies were able to take 8000lb. - 2 blockbusters- to Berlin...approx. the same as a Lancaster but a lot, lot more survivable.

I read somewhere that bomber command alone absorbed nearly 20% of the UK war production/manpower effort. An astonishing amount in retrospect.

Of course with the benefit of hindsight we can also ask was the RAF cursed by having a massive short range Spitfire force to the detriment to our effort in the Med. and the far east and the development of longer range tactical fighters instead of 'interceptors'?

luftluuver
01-23-2008, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by arthursmedley:
MB; with the benefit of hindsight would'nt the RAF have been better off building thousands of mossies instead of slow vunerable 7 man vermots.

By 1945 Mossies were able to take 8000lb. - 2 blockbusters- to Berlin...approx. the same as a Lancaster but a lot, lot more survivable.

Agh, that would be in 2 sorties. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Only one 4000lb bomb would fit in the Mossies's bomb bay.

Many a discussion has been done on that subject. Would say the Americans should have canned most of their B-17/B24 production and built Mossies. The Lanc and Hallie had the bomb load capacity when big bombs were required.

arthursmedley
01-23-2008, 05:24 AM
Would'nt 1 accurately aimed cookie dropped by a 2 man crew, confident of their return with what- a .5% loss rate- be better than 7 men crapping themselves in the dark with a 5% loss rate?

I dont think this would apply to the heavily escorted USAAF in daylight but at night?
Worth a thought surely.

jasonbirder
01-23-2008, 06:36 AM
It wasn't an Either/Or option...Mosquito Production (obviously) required facilities and workers skilled/geared up for woodforming and gluing rather than traditional engineering production lines...

luftluuver
01-23-2008, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
It wasn't an Either/Or option...Mosquito Production (obviously) required facilities and workers skilled/geared up for woodforming and gluing rather than traditional engineering production lines...
jason, how skilled do you think the workers assembling metal a/c were?

arthur, imagine 1000 Mossies instead of 1000 heavies escorted by those escorts traveling at plus 1/2 the speed again as the heavies (300mph - 200mph).

mynameisroland
01-23-2008, 06:51 AM
Here is another question - did it actually matter , performance-wise, whether it was made of wood or not?

Could the same aircraft be made from aluminium and rivets and waxed and polished to achieve a similar surface finish?

The Super Mosquito sounded pretty cool too, same design but 1/3 larger with extra crew member and 2 x Napier Sabre engines = mega fast medium bomber

Kernow
01-23-2008, 07:00 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 mynameisroland:
Was the Me 410 a German equivalent ? Or was it better than the Mosquito - because it was German, had DB engines and was made by Messerschimt - to pre empt you know who
The Russians tested the Mossie and the 410 and preferred the 410. No reason given that I remember. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe because the 410 had defensive guns? When reading the Crowood Aviation Pe-2 book by Peter C Smith, I saw a bit about the Petlyakov bureau tinkering with some cleaned-up, gunless, 'even faster' Pe-2 prototypes, in imitation of the Mosquito. The VVS liked them too, but kept asking, 'but can you put a gun in it.' It became apparent that the VVS really didn't like the idea of no guns, so the concept was dropped.

Aaron_GT
01-23-2008, 07:17 AM
There were many requests for the Mosquito to have defensive guns added - from a Vickers K at the rear of the cockpit, a Vickers K in tail and/or rear of the engine nacelles (unsighted), or a 4 20mm cannon turret.

De Havilland was asked to consider putting a tail turret in the proposed scaled up Mosquito (the project failing due to lack of suitable engines at the time of proposal as Napier was debugging the Sabre with no time to produce that and the required high altitude version for a scaled up Mosquito).

Aaron_GT
01-23-2008, 07:20 AM
jason, how skilled do you think the workers assembling metal a/c were?

One of the factors that controlled the production of the Mosquito was the lack of skilled woodworkers in the end. It was felt that to create a mostly Mosquito bomber force was impossible as it would require retraining of metalworkers to woodwork, therefore it made sense to continue making metal bombers. The other limiting factor was insufficient spruce supplies, hence the advantage of Canadian production, but even then the original spruce species was in short supply and a substitution was made.

arthursmedley
01-23-2008, 08:37 AM
I'm not sure if I buy the well-known reasons for limited production of the Mosquito, i.e.
shortage of skilled labour and wood.

I think after Beaverbrook left the ministry of aircraft production a small company like DeHavillands had no chance against the metal bashing might and influence of Vickers and the Nuffield organisation.

But think of the advantages of a large bomber force of simpler, safer planes with a much smaller crew.

The demands of both bomber command and the Usaaf drained vast numbers of the best manpower
and scientific resources from the other services in order to try and prove the bombing doctrines of the nineteen twenties and thirties.

But like I said earlier, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

mynameisroland
01-23-2008, 09:08 AM
maybe a different ratio but imo you need a large heavy bomber force to tie your enemy down in to having to counter that force. If you only have fast unarmed bombers then the enemy only needs to counter with fast lighly armed single engined fighters.

arthursmedley
01-23-2008, 09:44 AM
What, at night?
Anyway, accident rate of wild boar missions was horrendus.

Aaron_GT
01-23-2008, 09:51 AM
I'd argue you'd tie up more resources countering large Mosquito forces than heavy day bombers.

The Mosquito was fast and if also flying high you'd need to ensure that your fighters were accurately vectored to an even higher position to enable intercept.

The need for higher positioning means that more warning time is required of an attack. Given faster cruise speeds of Mosquitoes and smaller radar signature there would need to be more investment in early warning radar.

If the early warning investment was not met then there would be more need for standing patrols at high altitude to ensure that there were some aircraft to allow interception - more fuel usage, strain on crews (especially given short duration for single engined German fighters).

It might need investment high altitude versions to give more performance margin for intercepts.

Given the potential for small margins for intercepts then there would be more need for sufficient armament to ensure single-pass kills - so 30mm cannon would still be required.

If at night then multi-engined aircraft would still be required to ensure any margin of performance when carrying radar.

There -would- be a saving on needing defensive armour on the inteceptors, though.

Actually I suspect it would probably have meant a great deal more flak installations.

mynameisroland
01-23-2008, 09:57 AM
No, there needs to be a variety in Allied offensive capability to ensure that the Luftwaffe couldnt counter effectively. Yes a completley Mosquito bomber force would be very effective but after 6/8 months the Germans would have countered, because massed formation Mosquito raids deprives the Mosquito of one of its main strengths - unpredictability.

Just to calrify Im arguing from the point of view of a daylight bomber offensive. At night 1000 Mossie raids would have been impossible to counter until the Me 262 arrived - so Im actually agreeing with you.

arthursmedley
01-23-2008, 10:41 AM
See what you mean now Roland.
I would have thought a thousand bomber raid in daylight by Mossie's would have been unstoppable.

Flying on a broad front and not in formation, fast, at high altitude would have swamped the LW defences. No big formations to home in on,
spread the raid over 3-4 hours instead of 15 minutes and your fighters would have to land.

Aaron_GT
01-23-2008, 10:46 AM
The logic behind massed Mosquito attacks would also be that the aircraft (although not the crew) would be sent out on a second sortie immediately, so in theory the attack could be continuous for the whole night or day at a fairly high number of bombers per hour. Whether it would have worked in practice is another matter, and it would require the stream principle (as there would be no hope of forming up) and thus a well trained navigator/aimer per machine. The idea of the three crew super Mosquito was to split the training of this into two roles to ease the training burdern per individual somewhat.

MB_Avro_UK
01-23-2008, 06:28 PM
Hi all,

Amazing design concept to make a wooden aircraft in WW2. Real inginuity IMHO.

And it was also highly successful.

The prototype flew from a grass field near where I live (about 4 miles away) and away from the de Havilland factory for the purposes of secrecy.

I have a piece of the original prototype yellow fabric covering of the wooden airframe in my collection..

This prototype Mosquito first flew in November 1940.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v82/MB_Avro/Scan10022-2.jpg


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
01-24-2008, 12:44 AM
Great acquisition, MBA.

Xiolablu3
01-24-2008, 01:33 AM
I am not sure that 1000 bomber Mosquito raids would have worked.

The Luiftwaffe fighters were actually slightly faster than the Mosquito, but by the time the fighters had worked ou thte target and heading of the small force, the Mossies were usually racing for home and usually escaped.

1000 bomber massed Mossie attacks, as has been suggested already, would rob the Mosquito of its unpredictability, the fighters could find the bomber stream and use height for speed to attack at least the latecomers if not the mid-attack.

Flexibility is needed, the daylight US offensive, combined with the RAF night offensive, and the smaller Mosquito daylight raids proved decisive in the end.

They were much better used for taking out targets of intelligence, propaganda coups and particular buildings IMO.

With Hindsight, maybe 1000 bomber daylight Mosquito raids combined with Spitfire mkVIII escort (for the much longer range) in, and some Typhoons to cover the low level return racing home could have worked, but those guys didnt have this benefit.

luftluuver
01-24-2008, 02:12 AM
Don't think off 1000 Mossies flying as did the American heavies in one big stream but as many smaller formations of Wing size. These would be spread out along a front with many targets being possible. The Germans would be spread thin trying to intercept all of these small formations. These formations would then converge on the target at many different altitudes.

Kurfurst__
01-24-2008, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
That the Mosquito recce/bomber was able to operate in their various versions with near impunity from 1941 until the advent of the Me 262 in 1944 is amazing in retrospect.

Actually, I believe the first Mosquito operations over France had something like twice the loss rate of ordinary bombers, something like 8% vs 4%. Surely the circumstances played a lot of part. B 24s had higher losses than B 17s, largely due to the fact B 24s flew lower and got more attention from fighters and flak. Same went between Lancs and Mossies, the Lancs became the primary target as they were flying lower, there were a whole lot more of them around usually, they faced prepared defenses alerted by the first Pathfinder groups, and probably a bigger blimp on radar, too!

mynameisroland
01-24-2008, 03:14 AM
The 1st sortie or two were the Mosquito squadrons finding their feet.

I think intercepting Mosquitos at night required an act of god given that their cruise speed was as fast as German Nightfighters maximum speed. Bomber Command lost 279 (iirc) Mosquitos to enemy Flak and nightfighters over the course of the war.

Aaron_GT
01-24-2008, 03:20 AM
In all that I have read a slight advantage in speed is not enough for successful interception. The received wisdom seems to be 30 to 50 mph margin minimum.

mynameisroland
01-24-2008, 03:26 AM
Which theoretically the Luftwaffe could have achieved had they no viermotes to counter and had they spent serious consideration in getting the Fw 190 D9 and Ta 152 in to service earlier.

luftluuver
01-24-2008, 03:30 AM
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/MossieLosses.jpg

Kurfurst__
01-24-2008, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
In all that I have read a slight advantage in speed is not enough for successful interception. The received wisdom seems to be 30 to 50 mph margin minimum.

Thing to consider though is maximum cruise speeds, not maximum speed on WEP which would be unsustainable for any reasonable period and would not be practical because of range issues.

Does anyone know maximum cruise/eco cruise speeds and ranges for the main Mossie Marks - ie. IV, VI, XVI..? Or the typical cruise speed profiles in missions?

Roland, what about other losses with Commands - Coastal Comand, Fighter Command, the 2nd TAF etc..? After all, the most numerous variant was the fighter-bomber Mk VI iirc.

luftluuver
01-24-2008, 03:39 AM
List of Mossies and their fate

http://www.dehavilland.ukf.net/_DH98%20prodn%20list.txt

Kurfurst__
01-24-2008, 04:01 AM
Interesting list, though it is difficult to analyse the fates of the aircraft due to its format and report of fates.

What is clear that 707 is listed as 'Missing', though naturally it`s just the cases when they don`t know what happened to the aircraft. For example, some 66 or so Broke up in the air and this would not be counted as 'Missing'. In 47 cases they know the aircraft shot down by Flak, enemy fighters etc; 94 were abandoned for various causes. A curious thing is the huge number of 'Swung, undercarriage collapsed' on takeoff/landings reported : no less than 349 aircraft..

arthursmedley
01-24-2008, 05:05 AM
Were'nt Mosquitos notorious for swing on takeoff? Along with Tempests and Typhoons?

Kurfurst, while you're here a quick off-topic question;

I read a while back that LW ground crews on the eastern front found that in the winter they could add parrafin to the engine oil to combat the effect of ultra low winter temperatures on 109's, with- to their surprise- little ill effect on engine wear and reliability and that this practise was sometimes carried over to the western front. Is this true?
regards.

JG53Frankyboy
01-24-2008, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
....................Many a discussion has been done on that subject. Would say the Americans should have canned most of their B-17/B24 production and built Mossies. ...........

but the B-17/-24 formations with their fighter escorts brought the german fighter force down in 1944........ a main part in the fight about airsuperiority over germany !
all that Mosquitos would propably have survived an attack , but most propably had not shot down much LW fighters.

im not sure if formations of Mosquitos with fighter escort would have brought the same success.

stathem
01-24-2008, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
....................Many a discussion has been done on that subject. Would say the Americans should have canned most of their B-17/B24 production and built Mossies. ...........

but the B-17/-24 formations with their fighter escorts brought the german fighter force down in 1944........ a main part in the fight about airsuperiority over germany !
all that Mosquitos would propably have survived an attack , but most propably had not shot down much LW fighters.

im not sure if formations of Mosquitos with fighter escort would have brought the same success. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course all these considerations are done with the benefit of hindsight and the knowledge of current air force methods of operation, but...

if you considered a situation where groups of Mosquitos are spread out on different routes and heights all over Europe; and then add in some groups (Squadrons or even sections) of Mustangs, or P-38s, or even Mosquito fighters (obv. configured for altitude).

The radar and fighter controllers aren't going to know which returns are from unarmed Mossies carrying cookies (also in small groups remember) and which are from the fighters. In the case of use fighter configured Mossies then even the intercepting pilots aren't going to know until they are very close. Now OK, a fighter Mosquito is no match for a s.e. fighter but the interceptor will be climbing to meet them.

In this scenario it will be very chancy for the intercepting pilot, considering how much faster and higher the Mosquito and accompanying fighers will be.

Remember I'm not talking about a tied escort job but more of a, how do you say, Frei Jagd, role for the Fighters.

Kernow
01-24-2008, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Thing to consider though is maximum cruise speeds, not maximum speed on WEP which would be unsustainable for any reasonable period and would not be practical because of range issues.


Exactly. A point often overlooked by those who draw too many conclusions from in-game experience where there are no interception problems at all.

I think that's really where the Mossie's speed advantage lay: in it's ability to cruise at high speed. GCI needed to get the interceptors in position well ahead of any Mosquito to avoid a long tail-chase with little overtake where the s-e fighter might overheat or run short of fuel before closing.

Got no figs for bomber versions - and that's really what we're talking of here - but here are some figs for the FB.VI, from the Pilots' Notes:

25000ft, high gear, 20000lbs AUW
most economical - 2200 rpm = 250kts TAS, 85 gal/hr, 2.95 ANMPG (air nautical miles per gallon)
max cont' for Merlin 25 was 2650 rpm, +7 lbs = 295 kts TAS, 110 gal/hr, 2.7 ANMPG

25000 ft, high gear, 17000lbs AUW
econ - 2050 rpm = 240 kts, 75 gal/hr, 3.25 ANMPG
2650 rpm = 305 kts, 108 gal/hr, 2.8 ANMPG

total internal fuel in the FB.VI = 452 gals

At max cont' power an FB.VI could have a radius of action of up to 620 nm (I say 'up to' because there's no allowance there for start, warm-up, taxi, take-off, climb or any contingency fuel). However, it does show than an FB.VI could cruise at 300 kts at 25000 ft over most of occupied Europe and could extend that by utilizing a more economical cruise while in less dangerous airspace.

jarink
01-24-2008, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
....................Many a discussion has been done on that subject. Would say the Americans should have canned most of their B-17/B24 production and built Mossies. ...........

but the B-17/-24 formations with their fighter escorts brought the german fighter force down in 1944........ a main part in the fight about airsuperiority over germany !
all that Mosquitos would propably have survived an attack , but most propably had not shot down much LW fighters.

im not sure if formations of Mosquitos with fighter escort would have brought the same success. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hindsight being 20/20....

Huge Mossie raids probably would have been very difficult to counter, but they would not have achieved the same result that the heavy bobmers did - air superiority over the LW day fighters. Ironically, this result was not the primary aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive (at least, not the way they intended it to happen)! The CBO planners thought that the bombing would bring German industry (including the aircraft industry) to it's knees...that never happened. They accompliched the same result by forcing the LW (which beleived the same theories about the effectiveness of strategic bombing) to contest these raids. The resulting attrition of pilots, not planes, is what caused the LW to lose control of the skies. The only time that strategic bombing achieved any notable results through actual bomb damage was when they finally targeted the oil industry.

1000 plane Mossie raids probably would have gotten though with little loss, but I doubt the strategic effect of their bombing would have had much result.

DuxCorvan
01-24-2008, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by stansdds:
A later mark Mosquito would be a great addition to the Il2 series, doubt that it will happen.


Stop doubting. It won't happen. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by stansdds:
We Pacific fliers desperately need a Solomon Islands map.


Go on needin'. It won't happen. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.pictureshowman.com/images/articles/Articles_graphics/Casablanca/Casablanca_3.jpg

Aaron_GT
01-24-2008, 12:30 PM
1000 plane Mossie raids probably would have gotten though with little loss, but I doubt the strategic effect of their bombing would have had much result.

I would have said it would have MORE strategic effect.

The LW was only really beaten by the combination that the raids could not be ignored and had to be countered, and the addition of escorts. Prior to decent escorts the bombers got hammered and the LW strength was still pretty good.

So if you assume 1000 Mosquitoes then it is again a threat to be countered but not one that needs CLOSE escort. Instead the same number of long range fighters (as noted above) could be used to range freely, shooting down fighters on take off, landing, while forming up, climbing, etc. This was incredibly effective in 1945, and 1000 Mosquito raids might have meant that P51Bs could have been doing it from early 1944.

With regards to cruise speed, max continuous cruise for a B.XVI is 310 kts, or about 350 mph. This means that a 190A8 is just within the 50mph margin for a decent chance of interception (reports were that the A series had a hard time intercepting Mosquitos at altitude). 190Ds would have had an easier time of it, but then there were some attempts to improve Mosquito performance even more at altitude.

sgt.dumpster
01-24-2008, 12:42 PM
ooohhhhhh,those nagging Mosqiuto's !!!!!!!!They were fun to attack ships with in the ol'"Aces Over Europe" days remmember?!-astrogoth

Kernow
01-24-2008, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1000 plane Mossie raids probably would have gotten though with little loss, but I doubt the strategic effect of their bombing would have had much result.

I would have said it would have MORE strategic effect.

The LW was only really beaten by the combination that the raids could not be ignored and had to be countered, and the addition of escorts. Prior to decent escorts the bombers got hammered and the LW strength was still pretty good.

So if you assume 1000 Mosquitoes then it is again a threat to be countered but not one that needs CLOSE escort. Instead the same number of long range fighters (as noted above) could be used to range freely, shooting down fighters on take off, landing, while forming up, climbing, etc. This was incredibly effective in 1945, and 1000 Mosquito raids might have meant that P51Bs could have been doing it from early 1944... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was going to say the same, but - and I think this is jarink's point - if the Mossies were escaping interception and not suffering heavy losses, there would not have been a great need to develop long-range escorts like the Mustang. So although the escorting fighters would have had more freedom, would there have been a large force of long-range fighters to begin with?

Aaron_GT
01-24-2008, 02:15 PM
I was going to say the same, but - and I think this is jarink's point - if the Mossies were escaping interception and not suffering heavy losses, there would not have been a great need to develop long-range escorts like the Mustang. So although the escorting fighters would have had more freedom, would there have been a large force of long-range fighters to begin with?

Ah, I see that point now. The counter might be that longer range fighters were being developed for the Pacific theatre anyway, I suppose. The other one was that there was some success with rhubarbs and rodeos earlier so there might have been a desire to push those out further, but then to some extent the R- attacks (you can add rangers for night intrusions) were done because that is what could be done, rather than it being necessarly strategically decisive or useful (i.e. better to do something, even if not decisive than just sit on your hands and do nothing). Saying this, there were also some very unsuccessful rhubarbs.

Aaron_GT
01-24-2008, 02:17 PM
Actually the other issue would be whether it would be psychologically possible to get lots of young men to fly in totally unarmed aircraft. With a relatively small Mosquito force you could select those most pyschologically able to do it from a combat-tested force, but it would take a special courage to do it, even if you were told your chances were better in the little wooden plane without any guns.

Kernow
01-25-2008, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Actually the other issue would be whether it would be psychologically possible to get lots of young men to fly in totally unarmed aircraft...
Dakota crews did. Much slower and much lower, over Sicily, Normandy, Arnhem, the jungles of Burma etc... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif