PDA

View Full Version : Mosquito had the same bombload as B17....



MB_Avro_UK
04-02-2006, 04:39 PM
Hi all,

Amazing that the Mosquito had the same bomb-load on long range missions as the B17 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif.

Would it have saved many of USA aircrew lives to have flown Mosquitos escorted by P-51s instead of B17s and B-24s?? Check this link for payloads.

http://freespace.virgin.net/pbratt.home/De%20Haviland%20Mosquito%20BIV.htm

Just my thoughts.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MB_Avro_UK
04-02-2006, 04:39 PM
Hi all,

Amazing that the Mosquito had the same bomb-load on long range missions as the B17 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif.

Would it have saved many of USA aircrew lives to have flown Mosquitos escorted by P-51s instead of B17s and B-24s?? Check this link for payloads.

http://freespace.virgin.net/pbratt.home/De%20Haviland%20Mosquito%20BIV.htm

Just my thoughts.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

JSG72
04-02-2006, 04:46 PM
NOoooooo!
Much as you would like to think so.
No Mossies flew 4000lb bomb loads to Berlin (From UK)
And anyways B17 is 8000lbs(Says so. In Game! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

MB_Avro_UK
04-02-2006, 04:52 PM
Hi all,

This is a quote from the link I posted.

The Mosquito formed a small but incredibly potent part of Bomber Command's inventory, (there were never enough Mosquito Bomber's). Within Bomber Command Mosquito's served as a pathfinder, and as the Light Night Striking Force taking over from the heavy bombers attacking Berlin night after night virtually without loss, each Mosquito delivering a heavier bomb load than the American B17 heavy bomber, (for distant targets such as Berlin the B17's bomb load was less than 4000lb's). So fast and efficient was the Mosquito it was possible to bomb Berlin early in the evening, return, refuel, recrew and attack Berlin twice in the same night effectively doubling the size of the LNSF.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MB_Avro_UK
04-02-2006, 05:07 PM
Hi all,

Also, The max bombload of the RAF Lancaster was 22,000 pounds. The British Air Ministry philosophy was to carry as many bombs as possible at the sacrifice of guns and armour.

75% of the tonnage dropped on Germany was by the RAF.But it cost the lives of 55,000 RAF guys from Bomber Command (almost twice the fatalities of US crews).

If the Mosquito had been employed by both the RAF and the USA thousands of aircrew lives would perhaps have been saved.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

ForkTailedDevil
04-02-2006, 05:18 PM
Maybe I missed something? Max bombload on a Mosquito is greater than a B-17?? Or that the Mosquito can carry a load as great as a B-17 did on most missions? I have read that the B-17 could carry loads as high as 17,000lbs. Our in game Mosquito I have noticed has very unimpressive performance when loaded down with just 2,000lbs. I would think a Mosquito with 4,000lbs of bombs would be a sitting duck till it ditched its bombs.

JSG72
04-02-2006, 05:19 PM
Lancasters Max Load was 22,000lbs?
Only in the highly modified "Grand Slam" Single bomb mode.

Think the "Unarmed" Mossie With 4000lb bomb load wouldn't have fared to well over the Skys of the Reich.Considering the "Fast Mossies" were Single Reccie or Pathfinders with light bomb Flare loadouts!

ARCHIE_CALVERT
04-02-2006, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
Lancasters Max Load was 22,000lbs?
Only in the highly modified "Grand Slam" Single bomb mode.

Think the "Unarmed" Mossie With 4000lb bomb load wouldn't have fared to well over the Skys of the Reich.Considering the "Fast Mossies" were Single Reccie or Pathfinders with light bomb Flare loadouts! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what are you saying... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif That this is pure fiction... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

MB_Avro_UK
04-02-2006, 05:24 PM
Hi all,

We have an early war Mosquito in this sim. Later versions had a higher bombload and higher performance.

It's just my opinion that if the British and US authorities had adopted the Mosquito concept that many aircrew lives would have been saved.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MB_Avro_UK
04-02-2006, 05:31 PM
Nice post Archie... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

lbhskier37
04-02-2006, 05:35 PM
Sure they could carry 4000lb, but how far? The Corsair could carry over 4000lbs of ordinace, but not all the way to berlin and back. Mossies didn't have the range to get to berlin and back if they were carrying that kind of load. B17s only carried 4000lbs of bombs on missions deep into germany because they needed fuel to get there and back. Contrary to what is possible in this sim, most aircraft weren't able to take-off and climb to altitude with 100% fuel and their full bomb-loads. Full bombloads are only possible with less than full fuel.

luftluuver
04-02-2006, 05:40 PM
Oh, oh. A thread that has the Mossie replacing the American heavies. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Just finished reading such a thread on another board (http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=298&whichpage=1) Can't believe how myoptic and tunneled visioned that poster 'Lightning' is.

Here is a loss list for Mossies"

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/MossieLosses.jpg

JSG72
04-02-2006, 05:42 PM
<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,

We have an early war Mosquito in this sim. Later versions had a higher bombload and higher performance.

It's just my opinion that if the British and US authorities had adopted the Mosquito concept that many aircrew lives would have been saved.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree on the allies failure to recognise "The Concept".
And the superlative nature of the Mosquito (In any guise).
And its potential WAR Winning/Life saving atributes.
But it didn't happen so we cannot really come up with an answer. Without saying things like "Why didn't BMW get there act together in developing the 003. or Junkers the 004"
Sorry.(Just another "What If.")

ARCHIE_CALVERT
04-02-2006, 05:42 PM
De Havilland Mosquito B Mk IX: As B Mk IV but powered by 1,680 hp Merlin 72 engines. First of 54 production examples flown March 24, 1943; provision for four 500-lb (227-kg) bombs internal and one under each wing. Normal gross weight 22,823 Ib (10,360 kg), or 24,753 Ib (11,238 kg) with 100-Imp gal (454-1) drop tanks. Some modified to carry 4,000-lb (1,816-kg) bomb in bulged bomb-bay and Oboe in nose; a few fitted with H2S Mk VI.

The reason this varient could succeed is because the German Airforce could'nt find the blessed things... They did'nt exactly fly in 1000 bomber formations, leaving contrails all over the sky presenting a huge target for all to see either...

It's not rocket science, it just shows how well the RAF used her to OUR advantage and shows us again how versatile this 'Wooden Wonder' was!

Don't forget it was made of WOOD... It's weight advantage gave it a greater turn of speed and no doubt a greater loadout per mpg...

OD_79
04-02-2006, 05:44 PM
You seem to be missing the poin of the Original post...yes the B-17 could carry 17,000lbs of bombs, OVER A SHORT RANGE, to Berlin it carried around 4,000lbs of bombs, the same as a Mosquito could, and did, carry to Berlin. No one is claiming that the Mosquito could carry 17,000lb of bombs. Even fully loaded like this few were intercepted, and they did actually carry 4,000lb bombs (1 bomb weighing 4,000lb) which is why you see some with bulged bomb bays. It was a very effective aircraft, comparitively few were intercepted or lost. Whether using them would have had the same effect as the massed formations of B-17's and B-24's is debatable, maybe if there were enough of them, but being unarmed if they were intercepted in daylight they would almost certainly have had higher losses.

OD.

HellToupee
04-02-2006, 05:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Think the "Unarmed" Mossie With 4000lb bomb load wouldn't have fared to well over the Skys of the Reich.Considering the "Fast Mossies" were Single Reccie or Pathfinders with light bomb Flare loadouts! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WUm the unarmed bomber mosquitos did fair well over the reich, they did bomb berlin, and i belive what the post is saying is the mosquito with 4000lb cookie could reach berlin, and it could with droptanks and 4000lbs of bombs. The thing was even if the intercepting fighters were faster they wouldnt be able to climb and catch the mosquito before it had been and gone, the most common at 1200 built bomber mosquitos the B.XVI had over something like 410mph max speed.

luftluuver
04-02-2006, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Sure they could carry 4000lb, but how far? The Corsair could carry over 4000lbs of ordinace, but not all the way to berlin and back. Mossies didn't have the range to get to berlin and back if they were carrying that kind of load. B17s only carried 4000lbs of bombs on missions deep into germany because they needed fuel to get there and back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
To Berlin from England, all the time. B XVIs of the LNSF were based in GB.

Do you know where Gravel is? 692 (just a quick look) flew out of there with 'cookies'.

JSG72
04-02-2006, 06:00 PM
Ermmm.... Nooo
You see If the Mosquito was used as Avro suggested.
Well it would stand to reason that then this would have posed a serious threat and Action would have been taken accordingly.
As it stands. Yous are all picking and quoting figures from senarios that actually happened and not what could be supposed!
Perhaps if there were no Multimission B-17 raids.
Instead of developing Shturmgruppe. The Germans may have pushed the Jet interceptor to the fore.
Who Knows?

And don't say thy didn't have the resources.Because again you are talking froma scenario that DID happen!and not a Mosquito usage one
Know what I mean?

In all the Luftwaffe "Defence of the Reich" quotes I have read. It was the power of the defensive armament of those B-17s that put the defenders off. Not the Speed/bomb tonnage.

MB_Avro_UK
04-02-2006, 06:21 PM
hi JSG72,

Yes,who knows!!

But I think that the concept of flying Mosquitos instead of B17s and Lancasters has a certain validation.

A crew of 2 instead of 7 RAF guys or 12 US guys in a bomber would have saved aircrew lives.

If the bombing results had been the same then 20,000 RAF guys would have survived WW2. And maybe if the bombing missions by the RAF had been made in daylight and escorted by long range P-51s there would have been less German civilian casualties.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

ImpStarDuece
04-02-2006, 06:37 PM
Couple of important qualifiers on the "Mosquito had the same bomb-load as the B-17"

1. The maximum bombload of any Mosquito was 4,000-5,000 lbs with a converted bomb bay. I.e a 4000lb cookie and 2 x 500 lbs wing bombs.

On a Mosquito B Mk IV, conversion to allow the carriage of a 4000lb HC 'Cookie' bomb meant a reduction of top spped while loaded of around 8 mph at 10,000 feet and 14 mph at 22,000 feet.

Most Bomber Mosquito marks after the B. Mk IV had the 4000lbs conversion.

The Mosquito was capable of carring loads in excess of 10,000lbs though. A trials aircraft was mistakenly loaded with 5000lbs balast twice. deHaviland loaded 5000lbs balast to B Mk IX at the factory. It was then flown to a RAF test base, where the test team, unaware that deHaviland had already made the adjustments, loaded an additional 5,000lbs. The Mosquito flew as normal and the mistake was only realised after the flight was carried out.

There also were some USAAF tests that showed that the bulged bay Mosquito was capable of carring 2x2000lbs in the bomb-bay and 1x1000lbs on each wing.

According to the post-war British bomber survey average weight per bomber per sortie for the Mosquito was around 2,200 lbs although the high proportion of bomber marking, bomber recon and pathfinding missions hide the true story a little. Taking out pathfinding ect, actual bomb weight per sortie is around 3000lbs.

2. The maximum bombload of the B-17 was around 18,000lbs, consisting of 10,000lbs internally and 2 x 4000lbs bombs on the wings. The drag and loss of speed and fuel capacity for this load out meant that it was never used operationally. Range was less than 400 miles.

B-17s rarely flew with more than 8000lbs of bombs, and less than 5000lbs was the norm on any long range mission. Average weight per bomber per sortie in the ETO was around 4,200 lbs and about 5000lbs each drop.

3. Range is key. Neither the Mosquito or the B-17 could carry their maximum bombloads to targets deep in Germany. But, the Mosquitos load/range trade off was much better than the B-17s.

On a trip to Berlin, both could only carry 4000lbs, because of the need for additonal fuel tanks, the Mosquito carrying wing tanks and the B-17 converting the second bay bay into fuel storage. But, on a trip to the docks at Brest or rail yards in northern France, the Mosqutio could only carry 5000lbs, while B-17s carried around 6-8,000 lbs.

So they really didn't have the same bombload; what they had was the same bombload on long-range targets, while thier bombload on short range targets (and average bombload per sortie) was markedly different)

On another note, the Lancaster was perhaps the king of bombers in the ETO, at least in the range/bombload trade-off. Its average weight per bomber per sortie was just over 10,000lbs per effective sortie and it could carry more than 12,500lbs of bombs to Berlin.

ImpStarDuece
04-02-2006, 06:55 PM
<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 JSG72,

Yes,who knows!!

But I think that the concept of flying Mosquitos instead of B17s and Lancasters has a certain validation.

A crew of 2 instead of 7 RAF guys or 12 US guys in a bomber would have saved aircrew lives.

If the bombing results had been the same then 20,000 RAF guys would have survived WW2. And maybe if the bombing missions by the RAF had been made in daylight and escorted by long range P-51s there would have been less German civilian casualties.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With regard to daylight missions its a big maybe if it would of changed anything.

Harris was something of a bull at a gate when it come to bombing. I think he would of continued with area attacks regardless of whether it was day or night bombing.

After 1944, with the use of H2S, Oboe, BG, Gee, master bomber co-ordination, specialist pathfinding and reconnisance forces, British night time accuracy on 'precision' targets was actually very slightly better than USAAF daytime accuracy on targets of a similar nature. As the 8th AF moved into all out mode, blnd bombing and bombing through overcast became inreasingly common.

The standard RAF daylight bombsights, the ABS and the British designed US made T1 weren't as accurate as the Norden, and British bombers had neither the ceiling or defensive capabilities of their USAAF counterparts. While the later SABS Mk IIa tachometric sight was in many respects better than the Norden, and daylight raids with it showed that it was consistently more accurate than the Norden, there were only around 1000 manufactured during the war and they generally went to specialist units.

Long range daylight precision bombing was really impractical until the arrival of long-range daylight escorts in the beginning of 1944. Given far less tonnage per sortie, Mossies would of flown around 4 missions each to equal the tonnage of 1 Lancaster mission, or around 3.5 missions each to equal the tonnage of one Halifax mission. So for the same amount of tonnage, you either have to have a much larger force, or have the crews fly 3-4 times as often.

luftluuver
04-02-2006, 07:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
Ermmm.... Nooo
You see If the Mosquito was used as Avro suggested.
Well it would stand to reason that then this would have posed a serious threat and Action would have been taken accordingly.
As it stands. Yous are all picking and quoting figures from senarios that actually happened and not what could be supposed!
Perhaps if there were no Multimission B-17 raids.
Instead of developing Shturmgruppe. The Germans may have pushed the Jet interceptor to the fore.
Who Knows?

And don't say thy didn't have the resources.Because again you are talking froma scenario that DID happen!and not a Mosquito usage one
Know what I mean?

In all the Luftwaffe "Defence of the Reich" quotes I have read. It was the power of the defensive armament of those B-17s that put the defenders off. Not the Speed/bomb tonnage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> No, the jets could not have been got into combat any sooner. They were not really ready for combat as it was.

The combat cruise of the American heavies was ~180mph. The Mossie's was ~300mph. The Germans had a hard time getting enough a/c together to intercept the much slower Ami heavies. The Mossies would not fly in a massive stream but in individual (squadron size) routes from many directions. The Germans could not concentrate their fighters since they did not know where the Mossies would be coming from, and the target until very late. Now think about the number of Ami heavies and say they are Mossies. The German defences would have been overwhelmed.

The Ami fighters would have had an easier time escorting the faster Mossies. (cruise speeds more compatable)

The heavy lift missions could have been performed by the Lanc and Hallie. (more tonnage/mission)

As a footnote, both the Amis and the Brits went to fast unarmed light/medium bombers post war. (Canberra/B-57, A-6,....)

WWMaxGunz
04-02-2006, 07:47 PM
I've read that German jet development was held up for a year or more by Gen. Milsch and the
beaurocracy. In the end, Heinkel was pushed out and Messerschmidt got the funding, the
argument that the use of nosewheels that Milsch raised (as an American invention which was
false) were dropped. I read that as the right people were bribed. The authors of the book
I picked that up from also mentioned that Heinkel lost the jet development people he had to
Messerschmidt. Really, the authors did like Heinkel and the He-178. They seemed to think
that it held early promise and it did according to them run rings around the early FW-190.
It seems that in-fighting over budgets and control was as prevalent in Germany as the US.

WWMaxGunz
04-02-2006, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
On a Mosquito B Mk IV, conversion to allow the carriage of a 4000lb HC 'Cookie' bomb meant a reduction of top spped while loaded of around 8 mph at 10,000 feet and 14 mph at 22,000 feet.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am guessing tha spped isn't the only typo there. I mean top speed 8mph at 10k ft?

Please, what is that supposed to be?

HellToupee
04-02-2006, 08:22 PM
The mosquito concept lasted long after the war to, the canberra bomber which was used in many roles from bomber to high alt apying like the U2. Favoured in vietnam as well due to accuracy of optical sight over dodgey automatic sights, and i think still in service in places.

Mosquito while not carrying 22,000pound grandslams or the tallboys would be more effient than the heavies IMO, less crew more surviveable, cheaper and more flexable

HellToupee
04-02-2006, 08:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
On a Mosquito B Mk IV, conversion to allow the carriage of a 4000lb HC 'Cookie' bomb meant a reduction of top spped while loaded of around 8 mph at 10,000 feet and 14 mph at 22,000 feet.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am guessing tha spped isn't the only typo there. I mean top speed 8mph at 10k ft?

Please, what is that supposed to be? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He means amount of speed lost when fully loaded

mandrill7
04-02-2006, 08:49 PM
Actually the Mossie concept was massively popular after the war and right up until the development of the B-52. Both the US and GB decided that the future lay in building giant, jet-propelled bombers with Mossie-like HP to weight ratios and no defensive armament. The theory was that they would fly so high and fast that interceptors could not catch them. The B-17 concept of large fleets of slow, heavily-armed bombers in formations was definitely considered obsolete by '45.

The problem during WW2 was that both the USA and GB had invested in building bomber fleets and training aircrews and planning campaigns based on late 30's ideas and it was impossible to change horses in mid stream until the War was over.

ForkTailedDevil
04-02-2006, 09:22 PM
So a fully loaded Mosquito only loses 8mph when loaded down?? Wow I have trouble getting 300mph on the deck with our Mosquito and with a bombload it barely moves. So did later models have like 3,000hp engines and less weight?? Don't get me wrong I love the Mosquito I am just confused.

Akronnick
04-02-2006, 10:00 PM
If the B-17 and B-24 were so inferior, why didn't USAAF use types like F-105, or even F-15E? Clearly these types are far superior to any versoin of the B-17. And on the same note, why wasn't Roosevelt impeached for not having F/A-18E Super Hornets patrolling off Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941? Wasn't the D-Day Invasion unnecesary, due to the massive M1A2 Abrams units US Army had stationed in Europe? Why didn't they just send Superman to apprehend Hitler and end the war in September of 1939?

Wait, I think I know the answer to this one...

WWII didn't take place in FANTASYLAND!!!

Doug_Thompson
04-02-2006, 10:07 PM
The wrong question's being asked here. The question should not be, "Is a mossie better than a B-17?" The question should be, "Is a bunch of Mossies, flying singly or in groups, better than a formation of B-17's -- or Liberators?"

Formations of Mosquitos would have been hard to intercept, but easier to intercept than small, hard-to-detect formations or even single aircraft that were used by the Mossies in the war.

Putting a large factory out of action required many tons of bombs. And the target had to be bombed and bombed again to keep it from being repaired. Mossies would have had to keep a continuous stream over the same target around the clock to knock it out. Interception is much easier once you know what the target's going to be for the next 24 hours or so.

I don't know the answer to this question. I'm just saying that a bunch of Liberators dumping full loads over a town at the same moment has a lot better chance of pulverizing the target than a stream of Mossies.

WWMaxGunz
04-02-2006, 10:21 PM
Whups! I see my error there now! Thinking I was reading way too fast that time.
My apologies!

It must be due to the high speed. Ugly Kid had tuned me in to the much lower induced drag
at higher speeds years ago and just lately I read somewhat-related text from Shaw about
zoom speed differences to attain the same height seperation. Faster IS better. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I just can't see the huge daylight bomber runs that were done by B-17's being done by
Mossies on any regular basis. To me, the LW and flak would have chopped them up. A run
here and there yeah, but the destruction is not equal.

OTOH the B-17's were designed in hopes that with all the guns and armor that unescorted
bombers could work out. That didn't pan out but the assembly lines were already working
full time. It's a bit like the Sherman tanks in a way ain't it? Improve what you can
and throw large numbers at the enemy, quantity has a quality all its own as Stalin said.

HellToupee
04-02-2006, 10:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
The wrong question's being asked here. The question should not be, "Is a mossie better than a B-17?" The question should be, "Is a bunch of Mossies, flying singly or in groups, better than a formation of B-17's -- or Liberators?"

Formations of Mosquitos would have been hard to intercept, but easier to intercept than small, hard-to-detect formations or even single aircraft that were used by the Mossies in the war.

Putting a large factory out of action required many tons of bombs. And the target had to be bombed and bombed again to keep it from being repaired. Mossies would have had to keep a continuous stream over the same target around the clock to knock it out. Interception is much easier once you know what the target's going to be for the next 24 hours or so.

I don't know the answer to this question. I'm just saying that a bunch of Liberators dumping full loads over a town at the same moment has a lot better chance of pulverizing the target than a stream of Mossies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why would dropping all at the same moment be more effective? in the end its about tonnage on target, a stream of mossies or libs all at once makes little difference, tho why would a stream of mossies take 24 hours? generally speaking individual groups would all try to be on target around the same time so scrambled fighters dont have enough time to intercept after the first lot drop bombs, the thing is a lib lanc etc may carry more bombs but for the cost and crew of those birds u could have many mosquitos to equal the load and if a mosquito is lost the dammage is less than losing a heavy and crew.

HellToupee
04-02-2006, 10:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
OTOH the B-17's were designed in hopes that with all the guns and armor that unescorted
bombers could work out. That didn't pan out but the assembly lines were already working
full time. It's a bit like the Sherman tanks in a way ain't it? Improve what you can
and throw large numbers at the enemy, quantity has a quality all its own as Stalin said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ild also argue mossies will get in and out of the heavy flak zones faster also they provide a smaller target than a massive bomber, strong as bombers may be they wernt armored tanks and 88 could still blow a b17 in half etc. Also if mossie tactics of approach from many directions were used the aa gunners would have no singular area to fire on unlike one large formation.

Von_Rat
04-02-2006, 10:48 PM
the lw just would of built faster, lighter armed and armored, lower altitude prop interceptors. thinking light fw types here.

instead of the slower, heavier armed and armored hi alt prop interceptors they did build.

to be escourted effiently, wouldn't mossies need to fly in large easy to spot formations also. or would they rely on speed in small groups, with little or no escourt.

large attacks hitting all at once have added benifet of overwhelming defences in air and ground and also firemen and rescue repair services.

weren't most post war fast bombers mostly designed with nukes in mind.

HellToupee
04-02-2006, 11:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
the lw just would of built faster, lighter armed and armored, lower altitude prop interceptors. thinking light fw types here.

instead of the slower, heavier armed and armored hi alt prop interceptors they did build. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lower alt? mosquitos could fly at high alts and did fly at high alts. Their planes were not all built only for downing bombers, if they could make faster variants they would have, what do you consider the 190d9 is? bomber killer no its arment almost half that of the anton. If they could have made their fighters any faster they would have, considering almost every advancement in german designs lead to a faster but heavyer fighter.

Von_Rat
04-02-2006, 11:12 PM
could a mossie with a b17 type bombload fly as hi as b17?

a d9 would be able to catch a heavy laden mossie rather easily would'nt it.

its all a question of resoucre allotment. if germans saw allies building a large fleet of fast bombers, they would of concentrated resources and devlopment time on even faster than d9 interceptors sooner. instead of slower hevier armed ones they did spend resources and devlopment time on.

luftluuver
04-02-2006, 11:18 PM
Doug, you do know that Mossies (that is the same a/c - different crews) flew 2 missions to Berlin in one night.

The Amis with the heavies ran a mission every 2 or 3 days. There would be no problem putting up 5-600 Mossies every day.

ForkTailedDevil, the B IX did 437mph at 29,000ft using Merlin 77s.

luftluuver
04-02-2006, 11:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
could a mossie with a b17 type bombload fly as hi as b17?

a d9 would be able to catch a heavy laden mossie rather easily would'nt it.

its all a question of resoucre allotment. if germans saw allies building a large fleet of fast bombers, they would of concentrated resources and devlopment time on even faster than d9 interceptors sooner. instead of slower hevier armed ones they did spend resources and devlopment time on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Did the Germans concentrate resources and increase developement for the large fleet of Ami heavies?

Typical Mossie Missions were flown close to 30Kft. They then did a shallow dive, much like the He177s did in early 44, towards the target. Hard to catch an a/c doing 400mph without a height advantage and be close enough in the first place. How does one catch 5-600 Mossies converging on a target from a 270 degree arc with another wave of simular numbers 30 minutes later?

Von_Rat
04-02-2006, 11:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Von_Rat:
could a mossie with a b17 type bombload fly as hi as b17?

a d9 would be able to catch a heavy laden mossie rather easily would'nt it.

its all a question of resoucre allotment. if germans saw allies building a large fleet of fast bombers, they would of concentrated resources and devlopment time on even faster than d9 interceptors sooner. instead of slower hevier armed ones they did spend resources and devlopment time on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Did the Germans concentrate resources and increase developement for the large fleet of Ami heavies?

Typical Mossie Missions were flown close to 30Kft. They then did a shallow dive, much like the He177s did in early 44, towards the target. Hard to catch an a/c doing 400mph without a height advantage and be close enough in the first place. How does one catch 5-600 Mossies converging on a target from a 270 degree arc with another wave of simular numbers 30 minutes later? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes they did concentrate development time and resources to stop heavies. sturmbock is only one example, there are many more.

could mossies with b17 type bombload fly at 30k ft,.and if so how fast.

not only would the lw develop differant interceptors to meet the threat. they would also developed a differant early warning system to deal with fast bombers rather than the one they had for slow heavys. so the interceptors would probaly have the hight advantage.

you can't have what ifs for one side only, the other side would surly develop counter measures.

not that i really care for political correctness, but isn't ami a derogatory term.

ImpStarDuece
04-03-2006, 12:32 AM
After the early variants (NF Mk II, B Mk IV, FB MK VI) the Mosquitos generally switched to from single stage, two speed Merlin 20 family (like we have in the game) to the two stage, two speed Merlin 60 family, mostly Merlin 72/73s but occasionally Merlin 76/77s.

The first 2 stage Mosquitos were the PR Mk VII and the B. Mk IX, entering service in June and March 1943 respectively. To give an indication of performamce: the Mk XIV, essentailly a heavier B. Mk IX with a pressure cabin and bulged bomb bay, could do 330 mph at sea level and 408 mph at 28,500 feet, all while carrying a 4,000lbs cookie. At high altitude, speed increased by about 7-9 mph after the bombload was dropped, making for a very fast run home. Fast cruise speed with a full internal bombload was something on the order of 355 mph at 26,500 feet.

Part of the problem that the Mosquito generated was that it cut the raction time that the LuftWaffe enjoyed when the heavies appeared. Instead of cruising at 160-180 mph like a B-17 or B-24 formation, the mid-war Mosquitos cruised at around 350-360 mph, and final variants like the NF XXX and B. Mk 35 could cruise in excess of 30,000 feet at 375-380 mph and had operation ceilings close to 40,000 feet.

So instead of the steady, measured approach of the 4 engined heavies, the problem for interceptors is not only a 5-8 minute climb to 20-25,000 feet, but then to accelerate and catch a target that is cruising at around 340mph and may be attempting to accelerate away from you. Bomber Mosquitos had maximum speeds of between 380 and 425 mph, meaning that the vast majority of fighters before the last year of the war wouldn't really have a definite level speed advantage if the Mosquito was at its best altitude.

HellToupee
04-03-2006, 12:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
could a mossie with a b17 type bombload fly as hi as b17?

a d9 would be able to catch a heavy laden mossie rather easily would'nt it.

its all a question of resoucre allotment. if germans saw allies building a large fleet of fast bombers, they would of concentrated resources and devlopment time on even faster than d9 interceptors sooner. instead of slower hevier armed ones they did spend resources and devlopment time on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

like what? other than more 109 190 variants they didnt have much in the pipe line, their bomber killers were just mods of fighters(around before mass heavy daylight raids) slap on some armour shove in a bigger gun hardly drawing all the reserves of development, they also tried to copy the mosquito concept with i think it was me410 or something. Hell germans even wasted time working on the ta152 for some perceived high alt threat.

ImpStarDuece
04-03-2006, 12:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:


could mossies with b17 type bombload fly at 30k ft,.and if so how fast.

not only would the lw develop differant interceptors to meet the threat. they would also developed a differant early warning system to deal with fast bombers rather than the one they had for slow heavys. so the interceptors would probaly have the hight advantage.

you can't have what ifs for one side only, the other side would surly develop counter measures.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At 30,000 feet, the Mk IX/XIV could haul either 2000lbs (4 x 500lbs or 2 x 1000lbs) or 4000lbs (1 'cookie') at just under 400mph flat out. Cruising speed at that height would of been around 330 mph.

Early bomber Mosquitos with single stage engines cruised at about 340mph at 22,000 feet and service ceiling was around 34,000 feet. If the exhaust supressors were removed and multi-ejector types installed, then increase speed by about 5-10 mph.

Von_Rat
04-03-2006, 12:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So instead of the steady, measured approach of the 4 engined heavies, the problem for interceptors is not only a 5-8 minute climb to 20-25,000 feet, but then to accelerate and catch a target that is cruising at around 340mph and may be attempting to accelerate away from you. Bomber Mosquitos had maximum speeds of between 380 and 425 mph, meaning that the vast majority of fighters before the last year of the war wouldn't really have a definite level speed advantage if the Mosquito was at its best altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

as i said before, if germans saw allies building a fleet of fast bombers, they would of develped fast interceptors sooner. and detection systems to cope.

in the end i think it still would be a allied victory in the air, and still a bloodbath.

Aaron_GT
04-03-2006, 02:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No Mossies flew 4000lb bomb loads to Berlin (From UK) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Er... yes they did.

HellToupee
04-03-2006, 02:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
as i said before, if germans saw allies building a fleet of fast bombers, they would of develped fast interceptors sooner. and detection systems to cope.

in the end i think it still would be a allied victory in the air, and still a bloodbath. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Works both ways if germans rushed faster interceptors into service then bomber command would just rush faster mosquitos into service, eg NOS injection or strap on some griffions, the hornet prototype bit like a mosquito first flew in 1944 got to something like 480mph. Also if the heavies had been dropped infavour of mosquito tyes an all metal version would be a possibility metal making plane much lighter, but then losers out on of its advantages of small radar signiture.

StG2_Schlachter
04-03-2006, 02:24 AM
Can someone post some charts to support the "Mossies could carry 4000 lbs. of bombs and drop tanks and still fly at more then 600 km/h just below ceiling without overheating their engines on a 5 hour trip" theory ?

To add something to the discussion:

Maybe fuel consumption was a reason for the use of heavy, strategic bombers. While the "heavies" would need a single run to deliver a big bombload, the small Mossie groups would have to fly several times to archieve similar results.

The Mossie carried only one 4000 pounder someone mentioned. Try to drop a single bombe from ~30.000ft at such a high speed and actually hit something. Don't mention the wind drift of bombs, falling from such high altitudes.

The concept of carpet bombing was used for maximum damage. A massive bomber raid would often destroy a factory beyond repair.
1000 bombers would drop their bombs and rain bombs on their target, but some would still miss. Now think off a small group of Mossies with only a single bomb each. Not very effective.

Otoh, if had flown lower than the heavies, for increased accuracy it would have been much more vulnerable. The German AAA was very accurate and heavy. Since the Mossie was made of wood, it would not even require a direct hit to shoot one down. Even a mossie could not escape several miles of flak units around Berlin.

Von_Rat
04-03-2006, 02:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Works both ways if germans rushed faster interceptors into service then bomber command would just rush faster mosquitos into service, eg NOS injection or strap on some griffions, the hornet prototype bit like a mosquito first flew in 1944 got to something like 480mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it seems to me that its much easier to make a fighter with a faster hi speed than a bomber. its just common sense, a bomber has to carry heavy bombs and a lot more fuel than a fighter. the germans would always be well ahead in speed department if they devoted the resources to it.

HellToupee
04-03-2006, 02:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
Can someone post some charts to support the "Mossies could carry 4000 lbs. of bombs and drop tanks and still fly at more then 600 km/h just below ceiling without overheating their engines on a 5 hour trip" theory ?

To add something to the discussion:

Maybe fuel consumption was a reason for the use of heavy, strategic bombers. While the "heavies" would need a single run to deliver a big bombload, the small Mossie groups would have to fly several times to archieve similar results.

The Mossie carried only one 4000 pounder someone mentioned. Try to drop a single bombe from ~30.000ft at such a high speed and actually hit something. Don't mention the wind drift of bombs, falling from such high altitudes.

The concept of carpet bombing was used for maximum damage. A massive bomber raid would often destroy a factory beyond repair.
1000 bombers would drop their bombs and rain bombs on their target, but some would still miss. Now think off a small group of Mossies with only a single bomb each. Not very effective.

Otoh, if had flown lower than the heavies, for increased accuracy it would have been much more vulnerable. The German AAA was very accurate and heavy. Since the Mossie was made of wood, it would not even require a direct hit to shoot one down. Even a mossie could not escape several miles of flak units around Berlin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The assumtion is if that heavy types were dropped for fast types instead of 1000bomber raids uld have 3000mosquito raids its not a 1 to 1 comparasion as its been said 300 times.

Also they did not fly at full throttle or max speed, they did cruse quite fast, they could slow down on the bomb run. When enemy is sighted or escape is desired then mossie would go full throttle(and with drop tanks the beauty is u can drop em). Just because a mossie is amde of wood dosnt mean it should fall apart if u look at it funny, some mossies ive read about returned home after 108 hits from 262s, and a b17 or any otehr heavy couldnt escape serval miles worth of flak either, many were lost to flak more than lost to fighters rember. But as i said in a previous post mossies wouldnt have to fly in large formations flak would not be able concentrate and the faster in and out the better IMO.

HellToupee
04-03-2006, 02:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Works both ways if germans rushed faster interceptors into service then bomber command would just rush faster mosquitos into service, eg NOS injection or strap on some griffions, the hornet prototype bit like a mosquito first flew in 1944 got to something like 480mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it seems to me that its much easier to make a fighter with a faster hi speed than a bomber. its just common sense, a bomber has to carry heavy bombs and a lot more fuel than a fighter. the germans would always be ahead in speed department if they devoted the resources to it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would it be easyer all you do is take a plane put bigger engine on it boost it etc its just common sense.

Von_Rat
04-03-2006, 02:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Works both ways if germans rushed faster interceptors into service then bomber command would just rush faster mosquitos into service, eg NOS injection or strap on some griffions, the hornet prototype bit like a mosquito first flew in 1944 got to something like 480mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it seems to me that its much easier to make a fighter with a faster hi speed than a bomber. its just common sense, a bomber has to carry heavy bombs and a lot more fuel than a fighter. the germans would always be ahead in speed department if they devoted the resources to it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would it be easyer all you do is take a plane put bigger engine on it boost it etc its just common sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


sigh,,, any bigger engines, boost, etc, that you can put in a bomber. can be matched by putting bigger engine, boost etc, in the fighter.

THE FIGHTER WEIGHS ALOT LESS, so it'll always be much faster.

i guess common sense, isn't so common.

HellToupee
04-03-2006, 03:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Works both ways if germans rushed faster interceptors into service then bomber command would just rush faster mosquitos into service, eg NOS injection or strap on some griffions, the hornet prototype bit like a mosquito first flew in 1944 got to something like 480mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it seems to me that its much easier to make a fighter with a faster hi speed than a bomber. its just common sense, a bomber has to carry heavy bombs and a lot more fuel than a fighter. the germans would always be ahead in speed department if they devoted the resources to it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would it be easyer all you do is take a plane put bigger engine on it boost it etc its just common sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


sigh,,, any bigger engines, boost, etc, that you can put in a bomber. can be matched by putting bigger engine, boost etc, in the fighter.

THE FIGHTER WEIGHS ALOT LESS, so it'll always be much faster.

i guess common sense, isn't so common. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OMG! i never knew the fighter weighs less, perhaps a vital peice of information you havnt grasped, the mosquito has 2 engines that it 2 engines, so lets say you put a 2000hp engine in mr fighter yay nice fast fighter whoo hoo, but wait! put 2 2000hp engines in mr mosquito thats 4000hp so thats twice the horsepower of the fighter. Whats an empty mosquito like 6500kgish whats a 190 about 3500kgish. Also the p51 significantly heavyer than the spitfire and the same engine, but what was the differnce in speed?

StG2_Schlachter
04-03-2006, 03:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
Can someone post some charts to support the "Mossies could carry 4000 lbs. of bombs and drop tanks and still fly at more then 600 km/h just below ceiling without overheating their engines on a 5 hour trip" theory ?

To add something to the discussion:

Maybe fuel consumption was a reason for the use of heavy, strategic bombers. While the "heavies" would need a single run to deliver a big bombload, the small Mossie groups would have to fly several times to archieve similar results.

The Mossie carried only one 4000 pounder someone mentioned. Try to drop a single bombe from ~30.000ft at such a high speed and actually hit something. Don't mention the wind drift of bombs, falling from such high altitudes.

The concept of carpet bombing was used for maximum damage. A massive bomber raid would often destroy a factory beyond repair.
1000 bombers would drop their bombs and rain bombs on their target, but some would still miss. Now think off a small group of Mossies with only a single bomb each. Not very effective.

Otoh, if had flown lower than the heavies, for increased accuracy it would have been much more vulnerable. The German AAA was very accurate and heavy. Since the Mossie was made of wood, it would not even require a direct hit to shoot one down. Even a mossie could not escape several miles of flak units around Berlin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The assumtion is if that heavy types were dropped for fast types instead of 1000bomber raids uld have 3000mosquito raids its not a 1 to 1 comparasion as its been said 300 times.

Also they did not fly at full throttle or max speed, they did cruse quite fast, they could slow down on the bomb run. When enemy is sighted or escape is desired then mossie would go full throttle(and with drop tanks the beauty is u can drop em). Just because a mossie is amde of wood dosnt mean it should fall apart if u look at it funny, some mossies ive read about returned home after 108 hits from 262s, and a b17 or any otehr heavy couldnt escape serval miles worth of flak either, many were lost to flak more than lost to fighters rember. But as i said in a previous post mossies wouldnt have to fly in large formations flak would not be able concentrate and the faster in and out the better IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you post any perfomance charts for the later Mosquito types? Of course with the maximum bombload and drop tanks attached.

The thing with droptanks is: If you drop them, while they still contain fuel, you will loose the fuel as well and maybe won't come back to your base in England. If the Mossies slow down for the attack, as you suggested, there will be the Luftwaffe waiting to intercept them on the ingress to the target. No speed advantage anymore. And the problem of low accuracy remains. Now they could turn away and run, but the target would remain intact. And i strongly doubt, the Mossie could maintain maximum throttle for more than an hour.

So, maybe there were Mosssies that survived a few hits from a MK 108 (although I would like to know where you read this) but this is a 30mm HE shell. The caliber of the flak guns was up to four times bigger and the rounds contained lots of shrapnel. The flak was radar-controlled and very accurate. Look what it did to heavy bombers. Are you really thinking, wood is more durable then steel armor?

True, the B-17s did not escape the flak either , but they could sustain at least some damage, contrary to a plane made of wood.
Of course many bombes were shot down. But only in large numbers there was a chance to penetrate the flak belts around Berlin later in the war.

StG2_Schlachter
04-03-2006, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Works both ways if germans rushed faster interceptors into service then bomber command would just rush faster mosquitos into service, eg NOS injection or strap on some griffions, the hornet prototype bit like a mosquito first flew in 1944 got to something like 480mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it seems to me that its much easier to make a fighter with a faster hi speed than a bomber. its just common sense, a bomber has to carry heavy bombs and a lot more fuel than a fighter. the germans would always be ahead in speed department if they devoted the resources to it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would it be easyer all you do is take a plane put bigger engine on it boost it etc its just common sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


sigh,,, any bigger engines, boost, etc, that you can put in a bomber. can be matched by putting bigger engine, boost etc, in the fighter.

THE FIGHTER WEIGHS ALOT LESS, so it'll always be much faster.

i guess common sense, isn't so common. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OMG! i never knew the fighter weighs less, perhaps a vital peice of information you havnt grasped, the mosquito has 2 engines that it 2 engines, so lets say you put a 2000hp engine in mr fighter yay nice fast fighter whoo hoo, but wait! put 2 2000hp engines in mr mosquito thats 4000hp so thats twice the horsepower of the fighter. Whats an empty mosquito like 6500kgish whats a 190 about 3500kgish. Also the p51 significantly heavyer than the spitfire and the same engine, but what was the differnce in speed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-51 was a low-drag laminar-wing design.
The Mosquito was not?!

And you said it yourself. An EMPTY Mossie weights 6.5 tons. Now add ~2 tons of bombs and the drop tanks.

Von_Rat
04-03-2006, 03:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Works both ways if germans rushed faster interceptors into service then bomber command would just rush faster mosquitos into service, eg NOS injection or strap on some griffions, the hornet prototype bit like a mosquito first flew in 1944 got to something like 480mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it seems to me that its much easier to make a fighter with a faster hi speed than a bomber. its just common sense, a bomber has to carry heavy bombs and a lot more fuel than a fighter. the germans would always be ahead in speed department if they devoted the resources to it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would it be easyer all you do is take a plane put bigger engine on it boost it etc its just common sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


sigh,,, any bigger engines, boost, etc, that you can put in a bomber. can be matched by putting bigger engine, boost etc, in the fighter.

THE FIGHTER WEIGHS ALOT LESS, so it'll always be much faster.

i guess common sense, isn't so common. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OMG! i never knew the fighter weighs less, perhaps a vital peice of information you havnt grasped, the mosquito has 2 engines that it 2 engines, so lets say you put a 2000hp engine in mr fighter yay nice fast fighter whoo hoo, but wait! put 2 2000hp engines in mr mosquito thats 4000hp so thats twice the horsepower of the fighter. Whats an empty mosquito like 6500kgish whats a 190 about 3500kgish. Also the p51 significantly heavyer than the spitfire and the same engine, but what was the differnce in speed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the weight differance beteewn a p51 and spit is very small compared to a fully loaded bomber even a mossie, and a fighter, this ain't rocket science.

and if you think that a 2 2000hp engined fully fueled bomber carrying 4000lbs worth of bombs is going to anywhere near as fast as fighter with only 1 2000hp engine carry alot less fuel and no bombs,,,, theres not much i can say except start reading more.

HellToupee
04-03-2006, 03:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Works both ways if germans rushed faster interceptors into service then bomber command would just rush faster mosquitos into service, eg NOS injection or strap on some griffions, the hornet prototype bit like a mosquito first flew in 1944 got to something like 480mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it seems to me that its much easier to make a fighter with a faster hi speed than a bomber. its just common sense, a bomber has to carry heavy bombs and a lot more fuel than a fighter. the germans would always be ahead in speed department if they devoted the resources to it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would it be easyer all you do is take a plane put bigger engine on it boost it etc its just common sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


sigh,,, any bigger engines, boost, etc, that you can put in a bomber. can be matched by putting bigger engine, boost etc, in the fighter.

THE FIGHTER WEIGHS ALOT LESS, so it'll always be much faster.

i guess common sense, isn't so common. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OMG! i never knew the fighter weighs less, perhaps a vital peice of information you havnt grasped, the mosquito has 2 engines that it 2 engines, so lets say you put a 2000hp engine in mr fighter yay nice fast fighter whoo hoo, but wait! put 2 2000hp engines in mr mosquito thats 4000hp so thats twice the horsepower of the fighter. Whats an empty mosquito like 6500kgish whats a 190 about 3500kgish. Also the p51 significantly heavyer than the spitfire and the same engine, but what was the differnce in speed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-51 was a low-drag laminar-wing design.
The Mosquito was not?!

And you said it yourself. An EMPTY Mossie weights 6.5 tons. Now add ~2 tons of bombs and the drop tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but as i said the beauty of bombs and drop tanks is you can drop them if need be. Mosquito was quite a low drag design rads buried in wings and such it didnt just go fast by a fluke it was designed for speed the entire concept was based on it.

[quote]

the weight differance beteewn a p51 and spit is very small compared to a fully loaded bomber even a mossie, and a fighter, this ain't rocket science.

and if you think that a 2 2000hp engined fully fueled bomber carrying 4000lbs worth of bombs is going to anywhere near as fast as fighter with only 1 2000hp engine carry alot less fuel and no bombs,,,, theres not much i can say except start reading more.[quote]

Bombs are dropped, also we have top speeds of the 1700ish hp variants around 415mph, whats that gona be if they shoved 2000hp worth of engine on their 300hp per engine more, that gave the spitfire a bost of about 25mph. And even if a fighter is faster if it is not significantly faster and isnt in favourable position in relation to mosquito it wont catch it.

Von_Rat
04-03-2006, 03:52 AM
if you get attacked before reaching target your going to drop bombs and run,,,,riiight. that'll win the war quick.

adding 300hp to each engine on a hevily laden mossie ain't going to give you the same 25mph boost as it did the spit.

since the germans had radar you can expect them to be higher and in a favorable position to catch you. your talking about large number of planes attacking, not small pin ***** raids like most mossie attacks were.

StG2_Schlachter
04-03-2006, 04:20 AM
So i guess, there was no substitude for massed bombers assaults.

Aaron_GT
04-03-2006, 04:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">could mossies with b17 type bombload fly at 30k ft,.and if so how fast. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In terms of hitting Berlin, they could both put around 4000lbs on target. It was possible (and was done) to turn around a Mosquito and hit the same target again on the same night - i.e. up to 8000lbs on target per night. If you look at flight crew figures then this was done with 4 crew for the Mosquito, and 5 of the most expensively trained crew (pilots, navigator, bombardier, engineer/top gunner) in the B17 with greater total crew hours expended in the B17.

The advantage of the B17 was that it could carry a greater variety of bombs to Berlin - the Mosquito was fairly limited due to bomb bay size - and could carry a lot of bombs on shorter missions, and so was fantastically useful in the bombardment of France prior to D-Day and during the Normandy campaign.

Hap Arnold was very keen on the Mosquito and would have wanted a lot for the USAAF, but de Havilland was simply not in a position to supply them. The USAAF did use some for pathfinding, weather flights, and various other tasks.

De havilland proposed a 3 crew, larger version of the Mosquito with the proposal that it would be more efficient than 2 heavies. But it would have been a radical step, de Havilland was stretched, and suitable engines were not really available at the right time. Similarly the jet Mosquito was not pursued.

ImpStarDuece
04-03-2006, 04:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

adding 300hp to each engine on a hevily laden mossie ain't going to give you the same 25mph boost as it did the spit.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it will. Partcularly if you go to multi stage engines.

Compare the Mosquito B. Mk IV and the Mosquito B. Mk XVI;

Mosquito B. Mk IV: 2 x Merlin 21/23 rated at 1480 hp

Top speed: 380mph empty, 376 mph full internal bombload (2,000lbs). Later B. Mk. IV Serise II aircraft did 385mph when flame dampers were removed and 390mph when multiple ejector exhausts fitted in place of fishtail type

Mosquito B. Mk XVI: 2x Merlin 72/73 rated at 1,710 hp

Top speed: 408mph with 4,000lbs bombload, 415-420 mph empty.

So, a 230hp per engine increase in power, for a 37 mph increase in maximum speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

Spitfire went from a 1470 hp Merlin 45 to a 1535hp Merlin 61 and speed went from 371 mph to 408 mph. Speed actually dropped when the Merlin 66 was fitted, trading better low altitude and climb performance for a few mph top speed.

If you then go and fit 2 stage Griffons at 2,050 hp each to a Mosquito, the performance increase would be smaller as your getting diminishing returns, but a 20-25 mph increase wouldn't be at all unlikely.

Aaron_GT
04-03-2006, 04:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The thing with droptanks is: If you drop them, while they still contain fuel, you will loose the fuel as well and maybe won't come back to your base in England. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the Mosquito you used the fuel in the drop tanks first. Thus you would be flying with empty drop tanks. The drop tanks were faired into the wings quite neatly and were relatively low drag (for drop tanks) and the procedure was to keep them attached and bring them back for reuse. But they could be jettisoned if required.

One of the tactics suggested during WW2 for massed Mosquitos, had they been used instead of heavies, was to overload enemy defences by having some massed raids and a large number of night 'trickle' raids which would be all night long and have to be countered, thus depriving the enemy defensive network of sleep. With twice as many bombers (the proposed balance compared to heavies) there would be many more options for this.

HellToupee
04-03-2006, 04:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
if you get attacked before reaching target your going to drop bombs and run,,,,riiight. that'll win the war quick. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no but it will save the plane and the pilots so it wont lose the war any faster ither, what about all the others that dont end up in a situation where they dont have to dumb and run.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
since the germans had radar you can expect them to be higher and in a favorable position to catch you. your talking about large number of planes attacking, not small pin ***** raids like most mossie attacks were. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes they had radar, but you must rember radar was not the best, especially wooden planes didnt not show up so well also there were many countermeasures employed vs radar by the british. And what if escorts are send ahead against waiting fighters so many possiblities. Pin ***** 1200xvi mossies yep reall sharp pin ***** pissed off goering all right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OD_79
04-03-2006, 04:47 AM
Some of you also seem to be assuming that the Heavy bombers always hit their targets as well!

Whle they may have developed new radar to couter the higher threat there is the factor of low detecability to bring in, the Mosquito had a low cross section, this decreases the range at which it will be detected, giving less time to scramble fighters and get height.

As also pointed out it was already an extremely fast aircraft which the Germans struggled to intercept, in fact until the Me-262 was in service there wasn't really an answer, other than luck (being in the right place at the right time). Nothing could get to the height or speed quick enough.

I don't think you could have replaced Heavy bombers but there is a valid point in all of this which just seems to have been blown out of all proportion by pointless arguing and quoting for the sake of quoting and not reading what is written.

Long live the Mosquito!

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j117/david_carter10/mosqto_infl.jpg

JSG72
04-03-2006, 05:17 AM
Nice to see this ones still lively.
Have sobered up, after a nights sleep http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Haven't had time to read all the posts.

Ok Mossie could carry big bombload.

As far as interception goes.
Large formations of German fighters were already in the air patrolimg at high altitude waiting to be directed to Enemy bomber streams

Only times they had to Scramble was when individual ones and two mossies flew over their airfields. That was where the difficulty in catching them lay.

Surely if a large formation of Mossies was detected coming in.Any planes in the air could be directed at them. With defenders safe in the knowledge that those Pesky Mossies cant shoot back.
Would have saved a lot of German Interceptor Pilots lives?

Have you seen the damage one 30mm shell does to a Mossie? 'tis gone basically.

Think the Mosquito was used to its best usefulness As an excellent Intruder/nightfighter.
As for area bombing unlikely. Methinks

StG2_Schlachter
04-03-2006, 05:28 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

SnapdLikeAMutha
04-03-2006, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
it seems to me that its much easier to make a fighter with a faster hi speed than a bomber. its just common sense, a bomber has to carry heavy bombs and a lot more fuel than a fighter. the germans would always be well ahead in speed department if they devoted the resources to it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compare the increase in prop fighter speeds 1939-45, with the corresponding increase in prop bomber speeds

Irish_Rogues
04-03-2006, 06:05 AM
I'll stick my hand into the Hornet's nest. (Bad sort-of pun intended)

Wasn't the JU 88 pretty much the Mosquito of the early war? A bomber about as fast as the fighters of the day, swoop in fast and run away from pursuit. How'd that work out for the Germans?

Don't get me wrong as there is validity to both sides of the argument. The fact that in order to defend itself (run away) the Mosquito had to drop everything and run would've diminished it's effectiveness to a large degree. Even if they were to fly in small formations, some would have to cut and run. Also, if massed Mosquito attacks (not formation) were the order of the day then a counter would've been adapted. You merely need to bounce a formation of Mosquito's as they would need to cut and run to defend themselves.

The-Pizza-Man
04-03-2006, 06:19 AM
Even a fighter with a 450 mph topspeed would have to be vectored in very close to catch a squadron of mossies. Even then they wouldn't get more than one pass. The interceptors have to climb hard to intercept, accelerate to topspeed and hope that the engine doesn't explode before he catches up to the mossies. I wouldn't be putting too much trust in the quality of late war German engines.

Add in some escort Mustangs and things would be very dicey for the interceptors.

luftluuver
04-03-2006, 06:31 AM
The <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">practical</span> range of the 109, with drop tanks, was 200-250km. The 190s practical range was not much more. So some want the German fighters pratrolling, waiting for the bombers. Well the Germans did not do this for the heavies and some here expect them to do the same for the Mossie. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The Germans, dispite the war not going to well, did not increase production til sometime in 1943 when Speer took over and really did not get into full swing til mid 1944. In June 1943 the Amis had ~1300 heavies in the ETO. In Jan 1944, they had ~2600 heavies. In June 1944, there was ~4500 heavies. Replace those heavy numbers with Mossies.

To repeat, intercepting the slow heavies travelling in a long stream was reletivily easy for the Germans (but not always) but some here think intercepting an a/c doing at least 100mph more would be just as easy. Oh well. Some of the heavies would split off from the main stream to bomb other targets and would have a 'milk run' except for the flak. The Mossies would be coming from all points of the compass, in just as many numbers as the Ami heavies.

Some here have to get down to the nitty-gritty of 8th AF operations and the German response. The Germans did not have large formations in the air until they were pretty sure of what the target was going to be. Even then, if the heavies change direction, the German fighters were hard put to intercept the slow heavies. The Germans would not have any idea what the target of the Mossies would be until the very last moment when it would be almost impossible to intercept. (except for a few German fighters that might just happened to be in the area)

Also, how much success did the Germans have with the Mossie FB attacks?

mandrill7
04-03-2006, 06:37 AM
Okay, big deal about the Mossies.

How about a fleet of P-38J's with a full bomb load and drop tanks bombing Berlin??? Impossible to catch and the payload was significant.

StG2_Schlachter
04-03-2006, 06:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
The <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">practical</span> range of the 109, with drop tanks, was 200-250km. The 190s practical range was not much more. So some want the German fighters pratrolling, waiting for the bombers. Well the Germans did not do this for the heavies and some here expect them to do the same for the Mossie. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The Germans, dispite the war not going to well, did not increase production til sometime in 1943 when Speer took over and really did not get into full swing til mid 1944. In June 1943 the Amis had ~1300 heavies in the ETO. In Jan 1944, they had ~2600 heavies. In June 1944, there was ~4500 heavies. Replace those heavy numbers with Mossies.

To repeat, intercepting the slow heavies travelling in a long stream was reletivily easy for the Germans (but not always) but some here think intercepting an a/c doing at least 100mph more would be just as easy. Oh well. Some of the heavies would split off from the main stream to bomb other targets and would have a 'milk run' except for the flak. The Mossies would be coming from all points of the compass, in just as many numbers as the Ami heavies.

Some here have to get down to the nitty-gritty of 8th AF operations and the German response. The Germans did not have large formations in the air until they were pretty sure of what the target was going to be. Even then, if the heavies change direction, the German fighters were hard put to intercept the slow heavies. The Germans would not have any idea what the target of the Mossies would be until the very last moment when it would be almost impossible to intercept. (except for a few German fighters that might just happened to be in the area)

Also, how much success did the Germans have with the Mossie FB attacks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the Mossies want to attack at an altitude of ~ 25k - 30k feet - like some people suggested - it would be pretty easy to determine which target they attack, given the long way from the Initial Point to the actual drop, which would have had to be like 50 miles away or even more if they wanted to make the attack run with 300+ mph.

Another problem would have been fuel consumption. So the Mosquito could reach Berlin and fly back to Base at cruising speed. But if the were under direct thread from enemy fighters and had to speed up, the fuel consumption would have risen a great deal. Enough to make it home?
I don't know? That is why i want someone to post some performance charts for late war Mossies!

panther3485
04-03-2006, 07:09 AM
Q1: Is the DeHavilland Mosquito my favourite WW2 British twin?
A1: Yes

Q2: Do I believe it was a great multi-role combat aircraft?
A2: Yes

Q3: Do I believe it was a successful fast light bomber?
A3: Yes

Q4: Do I believe it was capable of carrying a 4,000lb bombload deep into Germany with a relatively low risk of interception?
A4: No argument, 'cos it did just that on some occasions.

Q5: Do I believe that the Mosquito could have replaced the American B-17 & B-24 heavies in the daylight bombing offensive role, achieving a similar or better outcome in all key areas?
A5: No f***ing chance!

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

Now surely, you guys don't have to ask my why I think this? The answer, IMHO, has been screaming at us and as far as I can see so far, nobody has really covered it.

Any volunteers?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

stathem
04-03-2006, 07:16 AM
Interesting you should bring fuel consumption up.

So, 109 has to do a full power climb to altitude to intercept unknown contacts, which he hopes are unarmed Mossies and not well armed Mustangs. He then has to punch the drop tank off and fly flat out to catch them, whilst the Mossie firewalls it. Who do you think runs out of fuel first?

And think of the total fuel consumption of the whole Jagdwaffe, chasing their tails all day long trying to intercept unknown contacts and spoofs, or worse still, mounting standing patrols.

ForkTailedDevil
04-03-2006, 07:21 AM
I guess I am really bummed out then. When I was a kid I read a lot about the Mosquito I used to play Ace of Aces everyday of game where you flew a Mosquito. When I heard it was coming in a patch I was excited. When I flew it I was really depressed. The version in our game is slow carries a small load and seems really easy to get shot down in. In fact I don't think I have ever succesfully completed a mission. What am I doing wrong? Other than woring about being bounced by La-7B's??

stathem
04-03-2006, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
Q1: Is the DeHavilland Mosquito my favourite WW2 British twin?
A1: Yes

Q2: Do I believe it was a great multi-role combat aircraft?
A2: Yes

Q3: Do I believe it was a successful fast light bomber?
A3: Yes

Q4: Do I believe it was capable of carrying a 4,000lb bombload deep into Germany with a relatively low risk of interception?
A4: No argument, 'cos it did just that on some occasions.

Q5: Do I believe that the Mosquito could have replaced the American B-17 & B-24 heavies in the daylight bombing offensive role, achieving a similar or better outcome in all key areas?
A5: No f***ing chance!

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

Now surely, you guys don't have to ask my why I think this? The answer, IMHO, has been screaming at us and as far as I can see so far, nobody has really covered it.

Any volunteers?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


Best regards,
panther3485 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well of course Panther, we know that the main achievement of the US heavies was to provide the ultimate, un-ignorable bait to draw the Jagdwaffe up where they could be engaged and destroyed by the escort fighters, but at the cost of thousands of bomber crew's lives.

The contention is that given streaming tactics mixed up with Frei Jagd Mustangs a similar result could have been achieved, plus it would have drained the fuel reserves of the Luftwaffe faster.

Or perhaps you mean that there weren't enough trees, or aircrew capable of being highly skilled pilots and navigators?

StG2_Schlachter
04-03-2006, 07:31 AM
Interesting points.

But Mustangs might not be able to escort Mosquitos so deep into German territory, because there speed with drop tanks was limited. So, unless they want to leave their escort behind, they would have to fly slow enough to allow the P-51 establish an escort pattern about their formation. Again, they will loose their speed advantage. Then it would be as with the heavies. One group of LW fighters engages the escorts and and the other bounces down on the Mossies. Those drop their bombs and run for home. Factory defended, mission accomplished.

Why do you assume a full power climb? Ground control could send the fighters to the likely vicinity of the attack. It doesn't have to be spot on. And don't forget that the airbases were not all in Berlin. If the Mossies were scared away by the Luftwaffe over Berlin, another unit could intercept the Mossies on their escape route. You can't expect the Mossies to fly at top speed all the way back to England.

ImpStarDuece
04-03-2006, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ForkTailedDevil:
I guess I am really bummed out then. When I was a kid I read a lot about the Mosquito I used to play Ace of Aces everyday of game where you flew a Mosquito. When I heard it was coming in a patch I was excited. When I flew it I was really depressed. The version in our game is slow carries a small load and seems really easy to get shot down in. In fact I don't think I have ever succesfully completed a mission. What am I doing wrong? Other than woring about being bounced by La-7B's?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember the version your flying and its appropriate role: the FB Mk VI Serise I that we have is a specalist low altitude heavy fighter/long-range intruder/long-range fighter bomber. It should not be treated like a pure fighter, even a heavy twin like the Bf-110 or P-38.

Rather, it should be treated as a very fast, very manouverable strike bomber, instead of as a heavy dogfighter that most people seem to want it to perform like. In and out at 300+ mph and 50 feet is the best way to run Mossie ops. Of all the aircraft I fly online and offline, I have the best sortie/death rate in the Mossie (about 7-8 sorties for every shoot down and maybe 10-12 for every death/capture).

Currently in the IL-2 serise we have a FB Mk VI Serise I, with Merlin 23 engines, representing one of the earliest marks of Mosquito. Peak performance is roughly 335 mph on the deck, about 5-10 mph faster than a F. Mk. IX Spitfire and only about 15 mph slower than a Typhoon Ib. At an altitude of 1500m/5,000 feet about the only opposition plane from a similar time period (very late 1942- mid 1943) that can touch it is the 190A5 or later. Even then there are some altitudes around 13,000 feet where the Mosquito was just as fast as the Wurger. The 109F2-4 and G2-6 are all 5-25mph slower than the Mossie below 2000m.

The later FB Mk. VI Serise II was some 10 mph faster on the deck than the one we have now, thanks to more powerful Merlin 25 engines, and replacing the manifold exhaust covers and flame supressors with multi-ejector types. Bombload was also increased to around 3000lbs. There is a chance we will get this slightly faster mark at a later date, maybe with rocket loadouts for anti shipping strikes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Later Mossies lost some of their low altitude performance (B Mk XVIs did about 333 mph on the deck) trading it for 415 mph plus speeds above 28,000 feet and bulged bombbays with increased capacity.

luftluuver
04-03-2006, 07:58 AM
Imp, I thought it was Merlin 21s we have now. I also thought the FB VI went from Merlin 21s to Merlin 25s. Also Series 1 Mossies a/c had the short nacelle which the FB VI did not have.

stathem
04-03-2006, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
Interesting points.

But Mustangs might not be able to escort Mosquitos so deep into German territory, because there speed with drop tanks was limited. So, unless they want to leave their escort behind, they would have to fly slow enough to allow the P-51 establish an escort pattern about their formation. Again, they will loose their speed advantage. Then it would be as with the heavies. One group of LW fighters engages the escorts and and the other bounces down on the Mossies. Those drop their bombs and run for home. Factory defended, mission accomplished. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You miss the point. Close escort is not what I was talking about. Send the Mustangs off earlier then. (althugh there may be a few P-51 afficionados who would be upset with your accusation that they couldn'keep up with Mossies.) We know that Free hunting is the best way to detroy enemy fighters, so long as there is an important enough bait to draw up said defenders.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
Why do you assume a full power climb? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Otherwise the defenders wouldn't catch them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
Ground control could send the fighters to the likely vicinity of the attack. It doesn't have to be spot on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they could guess correctly; ever seen the complex raids put togther by Bomber Command during the night bombing?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
And don't forget that the airbases were not all in Berlin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont' forget, not all targets were in Berlin.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
If the Mossies were scared away by the Luftwaffe over Berlin, another unit could intercept the Mossies on their escape route. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So long as they didn't drop to the deck and disappear off the scopes, or meet the Spitfires.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
You can't expect the Mossies to fly at top speed all the way back to England. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, perhaps you couldn't. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
04-03-2006, 08:18 AM
There simply werent enough Mossies to do this.

panther3485
04-03-2006, 08:36 AM
Close, stathem.

I was very careful to say 'I think' and 'IMHO', anticipating this very situation!

For a start, I am in at least partial disagreement with the basic contention that 'a similar result could have been achieved' (in relation to the defending German fighter force, long-term).

Just my opinion, of course, but unlike the US heavies, the Mosquitos would always be doing their best to evade the German fighters, leaving the task of engagement entirely to the escorts.

IRL, while a large number of Luftwaffe fighters fell to the US escorts, notably the P-51, it is also true to say that no small number also fell to the defending guns of the B-17s and B-24's. Also, there are factors involved in attacking such slow targets that make you even more vulnerable to the escorts. At the speed these formations flew and were escorted, this was a long and arduous slugging match.

While the cost for the Americans, in terms of lost bomber crews particularly, was undeniably high, this was markedly less so following the advent of the P-51 long-range escorts. It was, IMHO, the combination of both having to attack such large, heavily armed but slow formations and dealing with growing numbers of effective escorts, that caused the defenders eventually to be fatally weakened by the combination of (yes) fuel shortages but also, critically, the loss of too many irreplaceable trained fighter pilots.

I realize what some of you guys are putting forward, but to me it all seems highly conjectural in nature and rather uncertain, albeit theoretically less costly in Allied lives. I've no problem with saving lives - it's just that I don't think it would have achieved quite the same damage to the Luftwaffe. In other words, the 'lower cost' method for us would also, IMHO, have resulted in a 'lower cost' for them. Projected result? Indecisive, IMHO.

As far as I'm concerned, the US heavies (B-17 most famously), properly escorted, were the best tools available for the job at the time. [Talking about daylight ops here.]

Through their determination and sacrifice, by late 1944, they and their escorts had managed to achieve vital dominance of German skies that helped to bring about the final defeat of the Third Reich.

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

But again, don't bash me if you disagree - just my opinion, right?


Best regards,
panther3485

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

P.S. Pardon my exuberance - in my opinion, first half decent topic I've seen for weeks. Interesting ideas.

stathem
04-03-2006, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
Close, stathem.

I was very careful to say 'I think' and 'IMHO', anticipating this very situation!

For a start, I am in at least partial disagreement with the basic contention that 'a similar result could have been achieved' (in relation to the defending German fighter force, long-term).

Just my opinion, of course, but unlike the US heavies, the Mosquitos would always be doing their best to evade the German fighters, leaving the task of engagement entirely to the escorts.

IRL, while a large number of Luftwaffe fighters fell to the US escorts, notably the P-51, it is also true to say that no small number also fell to the defending guns of the B-17s and B-24's. Also, there are factors involved in attacking such slow targets that make you even more vulnerable to the escorts. At the speed these formations flew and were escorted, this was a long and arduous slugging match.

While the cost for the Americans, in terms of lost bomber crews particularly, was undeniably high, this was markedly less so following the advent of the P-51 long-range escorts. It was, IMHO, the combination of both having to attack such large, heavily armed but slow formations and dealing with growing numbers of effective escorts, that caused the defenders eventually to be fatally weakened by the combination of (yes) fuel shortages but also, critically, the loss of too many irreplaceable trained fighter pilots.

I realize what some of you guys are putting forward, but to me it all seems highly conjectural in nature and rather uncertain, albeit theoretically less costly in Allied lives. I've no problem with saving lives - it's just that I don't think it would have achieved quite the same damage to the Luftwaffe. In other words, the 'lower cost' method for us would also, IMHO, have resulted in a 'lower cost' for them. Projected result? Indecisive, IMHO.

As far as I'm concerned, the US heavies (B-17 most famously), properly escorted, were the best tools available for the job at the time. [Talking about daylight ops here.]

Through their determination and sacrifice, by late 1944, they and their escorts had managed to achieve vital dominance of German skies that helped to bring about the final defeat of the Third Reich.

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

But again, don't bash me if you disagree - just my opinion, right?


Best regards,
panther3485

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

P.S. Pardon my exuberance - in my opinion, first half decent topic I've seen for weeks. Interesting ideas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutley, Panther. No, I fully agree with you about the effectivness of the 8th AAF. I treat this as an interesting thought experiment that's been done many times since 1945, and one to which there's no definative answer.

I think what is clear, as has been said before in this thread, is that there was no chance in 1941/2 (when the Strategic planning had to be done) to predict using thousands of Mosquitos in this manner. It's only the benefit of hindsight that enables us to postulate this usage.

StG2_Schlachter
04-03-2006, 08:58 AM
I am sorry strathem.

We were talking of different situations then.
I thought this was about daylight operations with fighter cover, similar to what the B-17/24 conducted.

Then i assumed, this thread was about the bombing of Berlin or targets even further to the east, since this was where the Mossie had the same payload capacity of the heavies. Any targets closer to the bases at England should have been attacked by heavy bombers, because of the higher bombload, right?

You also seem to ingnore a few facts. You still assume, that the fighters would scramble to intercept the Mossies. I suggested they would send a patrol to the area where an attack was likely. Let's stick with that idea.

And dropping to the deck is not a great idea.
The closer the Mossies fly to the ground, the shorter their range will be. I don't know any excact figures, but maybe they'd run out of fuel on the RTB. And the closer they come to the ground, the greater the possibility of flak shooting them down.

panther3485
04-03-2006, 09:02 AM
Hi stathem

Quote:
I treat this as an interesting thought experiment that's been done many times since 1945, and one to which there's no definative answer.
I think what is clear, as has been said before in this thread, is that there was no chance in 1941/2 (when the Strategic planning had to be done) to predict using thousands of Mosquitos in this manner. It's only the benefit of hindsight that enables us to postulate this usage.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Agreed. It is a very interesting idea.

Of course, had I been a Mosquito pilot back then, I think my motto for daylight ops would have been, "Give me low, fast and sneaky every time!"
[Just my fanciful imagination getting the better of me here!]

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


Best regards,
panther3485

WOLFMondo
04-03-2006, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:

Then i assumed, this thread was about the bombing of Berlin or targets even further to the east, since this was where the Mossie had the same payload capacity of the heavies. Any targets closer to the bases at England should have been attacked by heavy bombers, because of the higher bombload, right?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on how precise you want to be. If you want complete precision you send in some Mossies fast and low. It worked well enough for the RAF to do this on a number of occasions. The heavies day or night were not precise at any point, at least not precise enough to target one building in the middle of Berlin.

StG2_Schlachter
04-03-2006, 09:18 AM
I guess precision was not a major point in this bombing campaign http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

scaredycat1
04-03-2006, 10:49 AM
This an interesting dicussion, but there where some pretty smart folks in command, i would think that if the mossie concept was better it would have happened.

luftluuver
04-03-2006, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by scaredycat1:
This an interesting dicussion, but there where some pretty smart folks in command, i would think that if the mossie concept was better it would have happened. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Consider that the Americans had already invested all kinds of time, effort and money into developing the a/c, building factories and the infrastructure (civil and militarily) to make these large a/c. Once that 'ball started rolling' it was hard to stop and change its direction.

But. When the Americans first got wind of the Mossie and what it was capable of they could have gradually phased out the heavies in favour of the Mossie. It would have been ready, in large numbers, for the '44 offensive.

Btw, the Americans did consider manufacturing the Mossie, but don't know why they didn't.

scaredycat1
04-03-2006, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 scaredycat1:
This an interesting dicussion, but there where some pretty smart folks in command, i would think that if the mossie concept was better it would have happened. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Consider that the Americans had already invested all kinds of time, effort and money into developing the a/c, building factories and the infrastructure (civil and militarily) to make these large a/c. Once that 'ball started rolling' it was hard to stop and change its direction.

But. When the Americans first got wind of the Mossie and what it was capable of they could have gradually phased out the heavies in favour of the Mossie. It would have been ready, in large numbers, for the '44 offensive.

Btw, the Americans did consider manufacturing the Mossie, but don't know why they didn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Point taken... makes me wonder if polatics, buisness.. were invloved... Boeing and Ford, (b-24), had a lot of clout..

StG2_Schlachter
04-03-2006, 11:11 AM
A question of prestige maybe.
Maybe they wanted the Fortress to win the war and not the Mosquito.

Aaron_GT
04-03-2006, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">IRL, while a large number of Luftwaffe fighters fell to the US escorts, notably the P-51, it is also true to say that no small number also fell to the defending guns of the B-17s and B-24's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No disrespect to B17 gunners here, but the number of LW aircraft they shot down was actually fairly small. Look at how easily formations were mauled as soon as the escorts had to turn back - it was to the point that at points the offensive was suspended. What B17 defensive fire DID do, though, was make it very hard for LW fighters to attack from angles which made downing the B17s easy, forcing them to attack from head on, and so on. I.e. it made pressing home the attack so difficult it much reduced the effectiveness of the LW fighter force. But it was the escorts that really did the number on the LW fighters.

To give the designers of the B17 their due it was assumed in the 1930s that heavy (and in this context heavy was much lighter than the B17F or G) defensive fire would ensure that bomber boxes would be impervious to attack. It was never the case. The fast bomber generally had lower loss rates than the heavy bomber at medium speeds (the B26, for example, also had a low loss rate) . There were times when Mosquitos had loss rates in the 5%+ region, but mostly when employed on medium altitude sorties - when flying high loss rates were low. When flying low one the main risks were terrain and bomb fusing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Btw, the Americans did consider manufacturing the Mossie, but don't know why they didn't </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

De Havilland was already involved in ramping up Canadian and Australian production and could not spare the staff to set up US production too.

With regard to volume production it has to be remembered that the Mosquito did not, as some authors have suggested, avoid strategic materials per se, as the lumber was from the Americas and not that easy to get hold of. (The temperate softwoods came from Canada, hence the logic of production in Canada). Rather it utilised non strategic WORKERS, one of the biggest contractors being the G-Plan furniture group. Thus it freed up skilled metalworkers. In the end different woods were sometimes substituted due to lack of supply. Luckily the balsa supplies from Ecuador and so on could be secured.

Aaron_GT
04-03-2006, 12:47 PM
P.S. The British actually considered building a series of even heavier bombers, flying at the altitude of the Mosquito where they were less likely to be intercepted, and some were planned with relatively small armament. In the end the Lancaster was given priority whilst research into pressure cabins went on, but this research was too late for WW2.

Aaron_GT
04-03-2006, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The heavies day or night were not precise at any point, at least not precise enough to target one building in the middle of Berlin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Quite often they'd be bombing through cloud anyway.

617 managed some impressive precision bombing with grand slams at the end of the war, though.

Aaron_GT
04-03-2006, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think what is clear, as has been said before in this thread, is that there was no chance in 1941/2 (when the Strategic planning had to be done) to predict using thousands of Mosquitos in this manner. It's only the benefit of hindsight that enables us to postulate this usage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true - the Mosquito only arrived in late 1941, and it took the whole of 1942 to iron the bugs out of the plane and the tactics. It wasn't until the latter part of 1943 that the Mosquito concept was fully revealed as effective, by which time the die was more or less cast - UK and Canadian production probably couldn't have been increased that rapidly and theoretical US production would have taken 18 months to ramp up (De Havilland's estimate).

ARCHIE_CALVERT
04-03-2006, 12:52 PM
Btw, the Americans did consider manufacturing the Mossie, but don't know why they didn't.

It's down to the old it's N.M.O.H. so were not going to use it chain of thought... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Or at least not in very great numbers... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Xiolablu3
04-03-2006, 01:36 PM
The problem with the bomber gunners claims, is noted in Clostermanns 'The Big Show'.

Even he said that the amounts they were claiming were absolutely ridiculous, but it wasn't their fault.

When one fighter is shot down and 200 gunners have their sights trained on it, Twenty of those men will swear blind that they shot down that German fighter, and each one will go back and claim a kill.

The actual number shot down was actually very small.

As Clostermann put it 'The more fighters the American bombers shot down, the more there were!'

SnapdLikeAMutha
04-03-2006, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
To give the designers of the B17 their due it was assumed in the 1930s that heavy (and in this context heavy was much lighter than the B17F or G) defensive fire would ensure that bomber boxes would be impervious to attack. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To expand on this point, bear in mind also that in the 1930s your average interceptor wasn't toting masses of 20mm/30mm cannon

A bomber with a 0.50" defensive armament is fairly well equipped to repel attacks from fighters armed with 0.303", because they have to be within spitting distance to actually hurt it. Once those fighters are packing large caliber cannon they can sit out of HMG range and lob huge shells at the bomber formation with relative impunity.

Which is where your fighter escort comes in rather handy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

sgilewicz
04-03-2006, 05:01 PM
If Bomber Command was taking heavier casualties than the 8th AF why worry about the B17? Why not replace all those Lancs and Halifaxes? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MB_Avro_UK
04-03-2006, 05:26 PM
Hi all,

I posted this thread and I have been very impressed by the informed and condsidered resposes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hindesight is a great gift....

IMO..operations with the greater use of Mosquitos in combination with Lancasters,BI7s and B24s would have been more effective in ending WW2 earlier and therefore saving lives on all sides.

Thanks to you all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
MB_Avro

luftluuver
04-03-2006, 05:31 PM
<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,

I posted this thread and I have been very impressed by the informed and condsidered resposes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hindesight is a great gift....

IMO..operations with the greater use of Mosquitos in combination with Lancasters,BI7s and B24s would have been more effective in ending WW2 earlier and therefore saving lives on all sides.

Thanks to you all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
MB_Avro </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, hindsight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Americans should have canned production of the B-17 and concetrated on B-24s for the Pacific. The Lanc and Hallie would have taken care of any heavy lift requirement in Europe. Those .50s from the canned B-17s could have gone into the Brit heavies. (IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

scaredycat1
04-03-2006, 06:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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,

I posted this thread and I have been very impressed by the informed and condsidered resposes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hindesight is a great gift....

IMO..operations with the greater use of Mosquitos in combination with Lancasters,BI7s and B24s would have been more effective in ending WW2 earlier and therefore saving lives on all sides.

Thanks to you all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
MB_Avro </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, hindsight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Americans should have canned production of the B-17 and concetrated on B-24s for the Pacific. The Lanc and Hallie would have taken care of any heavy lift requirement in Europe. Those .50s from the canned B-17s could have gone into the Brit heavies. (IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i rember reading about and seeing a pic of a .55 cal hmg, that Rolls Royce was developing for Brit heavies, i dont remember why it didnt happen though, was a long time ago....

ImpStarDuece
04-03-2006, 08:02 PM
MB_Avro[/QUOTE]
The Americans should have canned production of the B-17 and concetrated on B-24s for the Pacific. The Lanc and Hallie would have taken care of any heavy lift requirement in Europe. Those .50s from the canned B-17s could have gone into the Brit heavies. (IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)[/QUOTE]

More likely they should of moved towards devoting a theatre to each bomber earlier.

The B-17 had the ruggedness and damage absorbing capability that better suited ETO operations, while the B-24 had much better range and cruise figures, better suited to the Pacific.

Unless heavily escorted, the Lancaster or Halifax wouldn't of made as suitable daylight bombers as the B-17 or B-24. They had significantly lower ceilings and inferior defensive armament, although this is offset slightly by higher cruising speeds and better load carrying capabilities.

The RAF had a little ditty when the B-17s first arrived in England (sung to the tune of 'Glory, Glory, Hallelujah')

We're flying Flying Fortresses at 30,000 feet,
We're flying Flying Fortresses at 30,000 feet,
We've bags of point five ammo and one teeny-weeny bomb,
and we drop the bugger from so high we don't know where it's gone.

Glory, glory, shall we drop it?
Glory, glory, shall we drop it?
We've bags of point five ammo and one teeny-weeny bomb,
and we drop the bugger from so high we don't know where it's gone.

The Aussies and New Zealanders had a similar song about that started with "We're flying Avro Lancasters at zero zero feet" and had a few more derogatory comments about their 'Wild Blue Yonder' counterparts in their Forts and Libs.

The-Pizza-Man
04-03-2006, 09:36 PM
Another thing to note is that the RAF were the only ones to operate the B-17 at high altitude. Most USAAF B-17's flew at medium altitude, 15-20,000' IIRC.

Wasn't there a study during the war that casualties would have been lower and more bombs would have been carried if Lancasters dispensed with the guns and gunners and had flown faster at higher altitude with a larger bomb load.

mandrill7
04-03-2006, 10:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ForkTailedDevil:
What am I doing wrong? Other than woring about being bounced by La-7B's?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You were whoring about, being bounced by La-7B's? If I were you, I'd keep that sort of information to myself, old chap.

panther3485
04-04-2006, 12:43 AM
Hi there, Aaron_GT

Quote:
quote:
IRL, while a large number of Luftwaffe fighters fell to the US escorts, notably the P-51, it is also true to say that no small number also fell to the defending guns of the B-17s and B-24's.

"No disrespect to B17 gunners here, but the number of LW aircraft they shot down was actually fairly small. Look at how easily formations were mauled as soon as the escorts had to turn back - it was to the point that at points the offensive was suspended. What B17 defensive fire DID do, though, was make it very hard for LW fighters to attack from angles which made downing the B17s easy, forcing them to attack from head on, and so on. I.e. it made pressing home the attack so difficult it much reduced the effectiveness of the LW fighter force. But it was the escorts that really did the number on the LW fighters."


And Hi there, Xiolablu3

Quote:
"When one fighter is shot down and 200 gunners have their sights trained on it, Twenty of those men will swear blind that they shot down that German fighter, and each one will go back and claim a kill.

The actual number shot down was actually very small."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Hmmmmm.... looks like I might have got the wrong idea about how successful the gunners in the US heavies really were. OK guys, I got that notion from my general reading of the subject but I must admit, no firm figures were given (or at least, I don't remember seeing any). Just general statements as to how ferocious the defending fire was, how those gunners were among the 'unsung aces of the campaign' etc etc.

I'm certainly more than willing to change my view in light of better information, so please can you help me out here?

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

Can either of you give me any figures on this? How many German fighters did the B-17 and B-24 gunners actually manage to shoot down? What was this figure, as a percentage of all shoot-downs the Germans suffered against the US daylight bombing campaign in the ETO? More specifically if possible, how many went down to the bombers' guns and how many to the escorting fighters? [Leave other causes out for a clear comparison.]

I'd really appreciate knowing this, because my references on air warfare are not as extensive as those on my favourite subject (armoured warfare). Much obliged if you can assist here!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Thanks guys!


Best regards,
panther3485

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

P.S. Still reckon this is one of the few really interesting threads that's around at the moment. Is it my imagination or is the forum going downhill?

WOLFMondo
04-04-2006, 01:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The heavies day or night were not precise at any point, at least not precise enough to target one building in the middle of Berlin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Quite often they'd be bombing through cloud anyway.

617 managed some impressive precision bombing with grand slams at the end of the war, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those guys were the best of the best though. Some of those guys had more bomber sorties under there belt than the combined total of the crew of entire bomber wings.

luftluuver
04-04-2006, 05:28 AM
Panther,
concensus is that for every 10 that the gunners claimed, it was 1 in reality. As to actual numbers, ????.

Imp,
the American heavies were not heavily escorted in '44 with 600+ fighters escorting? Someplace I read that the mediums went to a higher altitude (something between 15-20kft) for bombing as it was out of reach of medium Flak and sort of too low for heavy flak. Lancs would be at the top of this zone.

Only the turret guns of the American heavies were worth anything, so the Lanc which did have in the beginning have a belly turret (replaced by H2S radar) only had the calibre of its mgs as a disadvantage. But since 100s of M2s were freed up because of no B-17s then the Lanc would get them (which is partly the reason the Lanc did not have the M2 anyways). Since this is a 'what if', there is no reason not to expect the Lincoln to be replacing the Lanc and DH Hornets to escorting.

The-Pizza-Man
04-04-2006, 05:43 AM
I think the number of claims by all USAAF heavies in the ETO was just a bit over 6000. In reality they probably shot down only a fraction of that.

ImpStarDuece
04-04-2006, 05:54 AM
The average altitude for targets varied greatly.

When the heavies went in to Germany, they went in as high as possible to avoid flak and fighters. Somewhere in the order of 16,000-24,000 feet for the USAAF and 12-18,000 for the RAF

When they went in to France against 'precision' targets (rail yards in towns, major transport exchanges, aircraft plants with workers housing nearby) they went much lower in search of accuracy. 8th AF Heavy Bombers over France in the first half of 1944 dropped from an average altitude of just 8,000 feet. Thats REALLY low for a plane that size. Even then their accuracy was only good enough to gaurentee 17% of bombs falling within 500 feet of the target and 45% withing 2500 feet of the target.


With regard to escorts, you have to look at the situation of availability of fighters. Sure you had plenty of Spitfires and P-47s that could do short or medium range escort, but the numbers of P-38s and P-51s available for long range duties were nminiscule until the beginninng of 1944. Before this the heavies would be all alone anywhere past the German border.

Before 1944 you had just 1 group of fighters available for long range escort: the 55th FG based out of Nuthampstead, which didn't start long range missions with P-38Hs until October 1943. Before that there is zero coverage into Germany.

The first Mustang groups didn't go active until December 1943. By March 1944 2 more groups P-51 came on line as did 2 other P-38 groups. Only then do you really have a viable long range escort force for the large bomber formations, with a theoretical maximum of 216 long range fighter available for escort duties.

The 600+ escorts only pan before 1944 if you count assembly and withdrawl escorts: mostly Spitfires and P-47s over France providing short range cover. By June/July 1944, with 12 8th AF long range fighter groups in either P-38s or P-51s, and others from the 9th AF, could the heavies hope to have an escort over German airspace that would outnumber their attackers.

luftluuver
04-04-2006, 06:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The 600+ escorts only pan before 1944 if you count assembly and withdrawl escorts: mostly Spitfires and P-47s over France providing short range cover. By June/July 1944, with 12 8th AF long range fighter groups in either P-38s or P-51s, and others from the 9th AF, could the heavies hope to have an escort over German airspace that would outnumber their attackers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Well that would be in the range for the heavy lift capacity of the heavies (+8000lb) which has been suggested for heavy bomber useage.

In '43, the American bombers rarely penetrated beyond escort range.

JSG72
04-04-2006, 06:57 AM
Think one has to remember.
That when these large raids were taking place.
The numbers of escorts can only be taken into account if they were actually in the presence of the BG being attacked.
In the 42-43 and eary 44 period. BGs were detected forming up long before they had crossed the Dutch coast. This gave the German Radar stations ample time to notify the various commands of the impending raids. Since most raids reached the Capital Around 13.00 hrs it made sense to have planes in the air before then. Ready to intercept.
Chance would play a great part on whether the BG attacked had an adequate fighter escort or not.
Sometimes the defenders got lucky and found unescorted BG. Wading in and shooting down Tens of them in as many minutes before any Allied fighters showed up.
As said most fighting with The Bombers was over within minutes for each JG that was sent up. They were up Hung around until directed to a BG. Formed up a fighting formation Attacked when commanded and then quickly Scarpered. Then another JG would take over.
This allowing the initial attackers to land, refuel/Arm and go up for a second bite on the return.
That was how it was supposed to happen anyway IMO.
Sometimes BG were so strongly escorted. That attacks would have been suicidal.
So a call off may have would occur to ask for other targets perhaps/perhaps not so well defended.
Bomber Escort fighters would not normally attack the German interceptors until after the first wave of attackers had struck. This to let the Luftwaffe defenders think they had not been noticed.
Schturmgruppe were formed Soas to knock down as many bombers in this initial attack.

Anyone tried making an Ubermision with say 40-50mossies at 9000m getting attacked by around30 odd 109/190s over berlin yet?
My job Tonight.....

DmdSeeker
04-04-2006, 07:11 AM
If you're considering a tactical change of such proportions as changing from heavies to Mossies; then go the whole nine yards and examine the job the heavies were taked to do; which was smash German manufacturing capability.

This; most analysis show; they failed to do.

While it's perfectly true that the heavies did contribute to the war effort; in terms of disruption and the tieing up of immense resources to defend the Riech which could be otherwise used else where (inclusive of AA defenses and the defending fighter wings); it's only when targets were changed away from industry to infra structure that the buffs really started to make a direct difference to Germany's war fighting capability; as opposed to the arial war of attrition thay had previously been engaged in.

This being so; the change from enormous wings of heavies area bombing (inefficently) to squadrons of precision strike bombers would (hopefully) also be reflected in a change of target from selection area attack of industrial areas to precision attacks of targets of value.

And indeed; this change of stratergy has been accepted in the modern world: The only heavies now in service (the B-52 and the Tuplolev Bear?) have; while still in service; extremely restricted roles in modern warfare.

There's still a role for an very heavy lifter on some very specialist targets; but the majority of strikes are now performed by fast moving fighter/bombers using the precision rather than the area attack mode.

I'd say generations of stratergists and planners have studied WWII and concluded that the Mossie was indeed the way to go.....

ploughman
04-04-2006, 07:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:

Wasn't there a study during the war that casualties would have been lower and more bombs would have been carried if Lancasters dispensed with the guns and gunners and had flown faster at higher altitude with a larger bomb load. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Freeman Dyson made a mathematical study of whilst working for Operations Research in Bomber Command during the war and recommended the removal of defensive armament on RAF heavy bombers. He concluded that crew losses would decrease as there would be less crew to kill and performance would increase as the aircraft would not be lugging around heavy and aerodynamically expensive defensive armament and crew to man them. The overall net effect would, he concluded, have been postive for the RAF.

WOLFMondo
04-04-2006, 08:23 AM
Having a few guns, no matter how ineffective they are is a moral booster for the crews.

ploughman
04-04-2006, 09:00 AM
That's precisely what the RAF said to Mr Dyson.

sgilewicz
04-04-2006, 09:22 AM
"The only heavies now in service (the B-52 and the Tuplolev Bear?) have; while still in service; extremely restricted roles in modern warfare."

What happened to the B-1 and B-2? Did they get retired?

Von_Rat
04-04-2006, 09:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
If you're considering a tactical change of such proportions as changing from heavies to Mossies; then go the whole nine yards and examine the job the heavies were taked to do; which was smash German manufacturing capability.

This; most analysis show; they failed to do.

While it's perfectly true that the heavies did contribute to the war effort; in terms of disruption and the tieing up of immense resources to defend the Riech which could be otherwise used else where (inclusive of AA defenses and the defending fighter wings); it's only when targets were changed away from industry to infra structure that the buffs really started to make a direct difference to Germany's war fighting capability; as opposed to the arial war of attrition thay had previously been engaged in.

This being so; the change from enormous wings of heavies area bombing (inefficently) to squadrons of precision strike bombers would (hopefully) also be reflected in a change of target from selection area attack of industrial areas to precision attacks of targets of value.

And indeed; this change of stratergy has been accepted in the modern world: The only heavies now in service (the B-52 and the Tuplolev Bear?) have; while still in service; extremely restricted roles in modern warfare.

There's still a role for an very heavy lifter on some very specialist targets; but the majority of strikes are now performed by fast moving fighter/bombers using the precision rather than the area attack mode.

I'd say generations of stratergists and planners have studied WWII and concluded that the Mossie was indeed the way to go..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

doesn't this statment ignore the effects of nukes on bomber design and also the cost effectivness factor argument for having multi role fighterbombers as opposed to heavies.

Von_Rat
04-04-2006, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
if you get attacked before reaching target your going to drop bombs and run,,,,riiight. that'll win the war quick. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no but it will save the plane and the pilots so it wont lose the war any faster ither, what about all the others that dont end up in a situation where they dont have to dumb and run.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
since the germans had radar you can expect them to be higher and in a favorable position to catch you. your talking about large number of planes attacking, not small pin ***** raids like most mossie attacks were. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes they had radar, but you must rember radar was not the best, especially wooden planes didnt not show up so well also there were many countermeasures employed vs radar by the british. And what if escorts are send ahead against waiting fighters so many possiblities. Pin ***** 1200xvi mossies yep reall sharp pin ***** pissed off goering all right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the germans could just fake attacks to get mossies to dump. they did somthing similar in rl to get escourts to drop tanks.


for every counter measure there was a workaround.
escourts sent ahead would have to find interceptors,, how they going to do that, no on borad radar or e3s to guide them deep in germany.

pin ****** is what mossies were best at, im not so sure expanding their role would work out any better than heavies did.

telsono
04-04-2006, 10:08 AM
I would like to throw some questions out there concerning this discussion.

1) What was the availability of the Merlins? Either Rolls Royce or Packard manufactured? I always sense that it was limited. The Whirlwind was not allowed to get Merlins because after the Peregrins failed to developed. Also, Lockheed tried the Merlins on the P-38 (K model)but was told to stick with the Allisons as there was huge demand on the engines at the time.
2) B-17 versus B-24 can be a debate by itself. one fault of the B-24 not mentioned is that it was unstable underload above 20,000ft. This is while in mixed formations in Europe the the B-24's flew the lower formations and the B-17's the higher.
3) Need to train more bombadiers. If small formations of Mosquito's are to be more beneficial more and more trained bombadiers would be needed. As the war progressed in the USAAF a master bombadier was assigned to the lead aircraft and everyone used his single to drop their bombs. Fighter squadrons used this same approach. The 56th FG had a P-38 Droopsnoop equipped with a Norden bombsight and the group would drop bombs on command from that aircraft.
4) Eliminate the use of bombers and use fighters with a a "Droopsnnot" version of the P-38 or a Mosquito B series to control the dropping of bombs. This poses a handful of questions in itself.

horseback
04-04-2006, 11:24 AM
As regards the altitudes of the "heavies" during raids, it has always been my understanding that the ingress was made at higher altitudes (25,000 ft +), approach was made with a shallow dive to add speed, and egress was made at 18,000ft or so in order to allow the damaged aircraft to stay with the formations' mutual defense as much as possible.

As much use as possible of 'doglegs' in the initial course was taken to to delay the enemy's awareness of the ultimate target; more than a few times, German fighters were deployed too soon or over the wrong approach route, and their relatively short ranges limited or prevented their usefulness.

Gunners' effectiveness does not necessarily translate into destroyed enemy fighters. EVERY German pilot account I've read of attacks on a box of bombers makes it clear that there was significant attrition on every attack. A staffel attack on the first pass was often down to a single schwarme after two passes. Most pilots, no matter how brave, are not going to press on after sustaining an unknowable amount of damage; if a sane man sees/hears/feels heavy MG rounds striking his airplane, feels a sudden 'floppiness' in his stick, if his engine starts misfiring or has his buddies tell him that it is heavily smoking, he's going home and he's out of the fight. Now throw in a flight of Mustangs or Jugs at any point in the operation, and things really go to hell for the Germans.

8th Bomber Command and the German defense were both learning on the job. They didn't know how effective they were at first, because neither of them knew what the hell they were doing. Hub Zemke reports in his autobiography that in the summer of 1943, just as 8th BC was finally getting significant numbers of aircraft in England, LeMay told him and a bunch of other fighter COs that their escorts were unnecessary. He changed his tune by October of that year, by which time the Germans had figured out how to best attack the bomber boxes, and the Allies hadn't deployed an effective long-range escort.

It's hard to be effective when you haven't figured out how to measure how effective you are, and until the daylight bombers settled upon destroying (and preventing repair/replacement) of a few key assets, they had a limited strategic effect, beyond acting as bait to bring up the LW for the escorts to destroy. Once they started hitting refineries and fuel resources, things got much tougher for the Reich.

cheers

horseback

Grendel-B
04-04-2006, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
The only heavies now in service (the B-52 and the Tuplolev Bear?) have; while still in service; extremely restricted roles in modern warfare.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

B-1. B-2. B-52. Tu-95. Tu-160. Tu-22M. The Chinese heavies. Don't know what India operates. Britain has retired the Vulcan, and France has not had heavies IIRC.

stathem
04-04-2006, 12:29 PM
And the B-52 is only used to launch stand-off weapons until air supremancy (superiority? can never remember which is which) has been achieved.

WOLFMondo
04-04-2006, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by telsono:
I would like to throw some questions out there concerning this discussion.

1) What was the availability of the Merlins? Either Rolls Royce or Packard manufactured? I always sense that it was limited. The Whirlwind was not allowed to get Merlins because after the Peregrins failed to developed. Also, Lockheed tried the Merlins on the P-38 (K model)but was told to stick with the Allisons as there was huge demand on the engines at the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In both cases of the P38 and Whirlwind, it wasn't just about supply, the Whirlwind would have had to be redesigned and I belive the Whirlwind was designed around the Peregrin so bolting a Merlin would have affected everything about that planes flying characteristics because of the size and weight difference.

As for the P38, the US could have easily made the Merlins for it, the US wasn't even at 100% employment and production capability in WW2, but I sense that it was 99% political that no Merlin was ever put in a P38 because a Merlin P38 would have had some real benefits over an Allison P38. That and the changes in production lines, designs, training the factory workers, aircrew, fitters etc would have been costly time wise.

HellToupee
04-04-2006, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by telsono:
3) Need to train more bombadiers. If small formations of Mosquito's are to be more beneficial more and more trained bombadiers would be needed. As the war progressed in the USAAF a master bombadier was assigned to the lead aircraft and everyone used his single to drop their bombs. Fighter squadrons used this same approach. The 56th FG had a P-38 Droopsnoop equipped with a Norden bombsight and the group would drop bombs on command from that aircraft.
4) Eliminate the use of bombers and use fighters with a a "Droopsnnot" version of the P-38 or a Mosquito B series to control the dropping of bombs. This poses a handful of questions in itself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Drop on leader was hardly a good solution if the lead was off everyone was off. Wasnt the british heavies at night more accurate than the us heavies at day because each individual bomber found their own way to target and dropped on its own?

Fighters do not have the range to bomb, not even the p51, it escorted bombers with 2 large drop tanks where bombs would go. Not to mention the lack of internal bomb bay.

telsono
04-04-2006, 02:29 PM
The Bitish bombers targeted the entire city, while the Americans targeted a specific factory in the complex. Comparing aiming points is like comparing apples and oranges.

For Bomber Command, during a night raid the Pathfinder units would drop bombs to start fires. This was to be the aiming points for the bombers to follow. The Germans would start fires elsewhere to distract the bombers. This was a totally different approach to the same mission and really not the same as the "Precision" Daylight bombing that the Americans conducted.

Irish_Rogues
04-04-2006, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for the P38, the US could have easily made the Merlins for it, the US wasn't even at 100% employment and production capability in WW2, but I sense that it was 99% political that no Merlin was ever put in a P38 because a Merlin P38 would have had some real benefits over an Allison P38. That and the changes in production lines, designs, training the factory workers, aircrew, fitters etc would have been costly time wise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've also read that another reason was that there was this other plane already using that engine and got priority, the P-51.

Aaron_GT
04-04-2006, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Bitish bombers targeted the entire city, while the Americans targeted a specific factory in the complex. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The USAAF often conducted area bombing over Germany too.

ImpStarDuece
04-04-2006, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Bitish bombers targeted the entire city, while the Americans targeted a specific factory in the complex. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The USAAF often conducted area bombing over Germany too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And Bomber Command also practiced precision bombing over Germany.

JSG72
04-04-2006, 04:42 PM
OK just flew (Well actually still flying on Auto) An Uberdemon mission 52 Mosquitos 4x500lb against 20 me 109g late 30mm cannon. 8700mtrs over berlin. Head on with a 200mtr advantage.

Manged to shoot down 7 before I only had mgs left. Counted 30 mossies shot down in about 12mins of attack.
They started to shallow dive. So did we!
It was strange flying amongst a formation that didn't shoot back!
I normally fly against b17s with escort In a tooled up 190 and the most I have got is 3 without death.
So it isn't real But surely not that far out.
Need to go back and check how things are fairing.

ImpStarDuece
04-04-2006, 04:57 PM
What speed were the Mossies going? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JSG72
04-04-2006, 05:23 PM
Darn it they were Dog slow!
I had put in that they should have been doing 425kph. However I managed to cut them off at the turn doing only 300 myself.
Interestingly. It's the first time I've seen in game the rest of my flight actually making an attack head on. Normally they fly through and turn. The rest of the attack by my flight was Boom and zoom. Even though they didn't have to.
As you could fly amongst them just picking off as you went.
Another interesting thing was the lack of turbulence making aiming easier. Certainly don't get that tail chasing a box of B-17s.(Doh!)
Only downloaded Uberdemons latest 4.04 software recently.
Now for some more experiments before bed.
Oh and BTW ImpStarDeuce One of Bomber commands presicion bombing missions (Which only happened in April'45 when they thought the Luftwaffe was erradicated. Resulted in the loss of 17 Lancs in one pass by JG7s 262s using RAM Doh!).

ImpStarDuece
04-04-2006, 05:43 PM
Mosquito B. Mk IV, which is the bomber version we have in the game, best speed was around 385mph/620 kph at 17,000 feet/5,200m when empty and about 380mph/610kph when fully loaded internally. It began operations in May, 1942. Likely interceptors would be 109F4s and 109G2s as well as 190A4 and 190A5s

Fast cruising speed (i.e. 1 hour maximum continous rating) was about 340 mph/545 kph at 22,000 feet/6,500m.

If I was a Mosquito bomber pilot, I'd want to be well above 500kph when I knew there were enemy fighters about. At this speed most enemy fighters would get 1 pass before the Mosquito got away. Its a little easier catching and shooting down a Mossie at 300 kph than it is catching one doing over 500 kph.

The Mosquito bomber variant in the game seems decidedly slow. As its not flyable I can't check the level speeds myself, but it appears (from IL2Compare at least) to be maxing out at about 560 kph, or some 40-50kph too slow.

JSG72
04-04-2006, 06:07 PM
As it would appear Moquitoes Top speed does seem down "In Game" However None but Noone flys/Drives/Floats around at top speed all the time.
I find it curious that folks on here keep quoting Speeds with this and that at such and such a height. When reality Isn't like that!
Performance Envelop is more of a reality as well as the skill to use it.
Most flyers were not Test pilots able to eek out every ounce of performance from their aircraft. Just as we ingame can find it frustrating. When we can't catch that supposed easily the worst plane in the air.
It has to be a compromise.Imagine being in a flight box of Mosquitoes and Flight leader calls out "Gerry Ahead" Everybody 15 degree Dive! Full Throttle. F**k me it would be absolute Chaos! You wouldn't need to shoot them down. Just Stand back and watch the show. Dozens would be down without firing a shot.
We are talking Mosquitos taking the role of the B17 here. So are we also hving to change tactics and also time of usage and number of escorts and heights and opposition. The list goes on. And it's great fun discussing.
However We weren't their. but it is great that we can openly put forward our Ideas that have been knawing us over the years.
Honestly Think the Mossie was a fantastic aircraft. In the role it was used for and that's it. No 1000 bomber Mossie raids.

panther3485
04-04-2006, 08:19 PM
So far, from the answers posted here (but noticeably, none from either Aaron_GT or Xiolablu3), the 'best' estimate seems to be that B17 and B24 gunners collectively claimed somewhat over 6,000 German fighter kills. So, going on the proposed fraction of one tenth the claims, this means they actually shot down 600 or so for the whole campaign?????

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Can anyone clarify or improve on this figure?

[Edit:
BTW, thanks to luftluuver and The-Pizza-Man, for trying to help me with those answers. Appreciated.]


Best regards,
panther3485

HellToupee
04-04-2006, 10:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
It has to be a compromise.Imagine being in a flight box of Mosquitoes and Flight leader calls out "Gerry Ahead" Everybody 15 degree Dive! Full Throttle. F**k me it would be absolute Chaos! You wouldn't need to shoot them down. Just Stand back and watch the show. Dozens would be down without firing a shot.
We are talking Mosquitos taking the role of the B17 here. So are we also hving to change tactics and also time of usage and number of escorts and heights and opposition. The list goes on. And it's great fun discussing.
However We weren't their. but it is great that we can openly put forward our Ideas that have been knawing us over the years.
Honestly Think the Mossie was a fantastic aircraft. In the role it was used for and that's it. No 1000 bomber Mossie raids. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There wouldnt be boxes of mosquitos, only reason b17s flew in boxes was for overlapping defensive guns, no guns on bomber mosquito so box formation would be a disadvantage just one large target for flak. Escorts would not need to be close or even above, they would just have to fly ahead and disrupt any enemy in a position to catch the mosquitos. There shouldnt be coas each mossie would generally be capable of flying individually and capable of getting themselfs out of danger.

Speed is important dosnt matter test pilots or not all pilots knew the limits placed on the engines and flying in a straight line is pretty easy.

Von_Rat
04-04-2006, 11:15 PM
heres a question.. lets say that mossies are almost as fast as interceptors, but not quite.

mossies are deep in germany, and get bounced. other than running to a cloud, how are they gonna escape, since interceptors is still faster. i know theres lots of clouds over europe often, but it still sounds like i wouldn't wanna bet life on it.

if escourts are the answer, then bombing offensive would of had to wait till long range escourts were avaiable.

has anybody given any thoughts to problem of escourting bombers that rely on speed for escape. one poster said it'd be easier because of closer speeds beteewn planes, but i have my doubts.

for escourts to be effeient mossies still would have to fly in groups, if they broke up to run then those that escourts can't cover would be in trouble. staying in a group wouldn't be easy either when your running for your life.

saying that you would send escourts ahead to clear way has problems to. escourts were well known for often missing rendovous with bombers, if they couldn't even find friendlys quite often, how they gonna spot all the enemy.

HellToupee
04-04-2006, 11:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
heres a question.. lets say that mossies are almost as fast as interceptors, but not quite.

mossies are deep in germany, and get bounced. other than running to a cloud, how are they gonna escape, since interceptors is still faster. i know theres lots of clouds over europe often, but it still sounds like i wouldn't wanna bet life on it.

if escourts are the answer, then bombing offensive would of had to wait till long range escourts were avaiable.

has anybody given any thoughts to problem of escourting bombers that rely on speed for escape. one poster said it'd be easier because of closer speeds beteewn planes, but i have my doubts.

for escourts to be effeient mossies still would have to fly in groups, if they broke up to run then those that escourts can't cover would be in trouble. staying in a group wouldn't be easy either when your running for your life.

saying that you would send escourts ahead to clear way has problems to. escourts were well known for often missing rendovous with bombers, if they couldn't even find friendlys quite often, how they gonna spot all the enemy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes well if one gets bounced theres not a great many options, but the thing is the mosquito is very hard to bounce crusing fast and high. Its not uncatch able, even some me262s were shot down by spitfires in the air just requires favourable circumstances. Any interceptor that wasnt atleast co alt and close or heigher would have little chance of catching it even if faster, if a mossie gets intercepted it has few options but the point is interception is very much harder than a large very slow bomber, what would heavy bomber defensive gunners do when faced with the standoff weapons employed by interceptors beyond their range, eg MK103 those underwing mortars, r4m and various expermental weapons wire guided missles etc.

edit: also with reguards to groups escorts wouldnt have to fly close escort they could do like they later did in war and fly on ahead disrupting LW interceptors, tho groups of mossies easyer to escort also easyer to intercept, scattered mossies allows no single point of interception.

Von_Rat
04-04-2006, 11:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Any interceptor that wasnt atleast co alt and close or heigher would have little chance of catching it even if faster, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


but if the interceptors spot them, even if they are only slighty faster, where is mossie going to go if its in middle of germany.

as long as interceptor has enough gas its eventually going to catch mossie.

HellToupee
04-05-2006, 12:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Any interceptor that wasnt atleast co alt and close or heigher would have little chance of catching it even if faster, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


but if the interceptors spot them, even if they are only slighty faster, where is mossie going to go if its in middle of germany.

as long as interceptor has enough gas its eventually going to catch mossie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

how eventually? how long can it run on full power after a fast climb? Actual tests were carried out and in loss statisics all show interceptors did not often catch them.

Von_Rat
04-05-2006, 12:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Any interceptor that wasnt atleast co alt and close or heigher would have little chance of catching it even if faster, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


but if the interceptors spot them, even if they are only slighty faster, where is mossie going to go if its in middle of germany.

as long as interceptor has enough gas its eventually going to catch mossie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

how eventually? how long can it run on full power after a fast climb? Actual tests were carried out and in loss statisics all show interceptors did not often catch them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

your assuming interceptors are always going to have to climb, thats a big assumption.

catching mossies in pin ***** raids and catching groups, when theres literally hundreds of mossies in the air, are 2 differant things.

im assuming that hundreds would have to fly at more or less same time to take advantage of clear flying weather and limited daylight, especially in winter. so they could deliver b17 like punishment to target. dropping 2 or 3 loads every few hours isnt b17 like punishment.

HellToupee
04-05-2006, 12:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Any interceptor that wasnt atleast co alt and close or heigher would have little chance of catching it even if faster, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


but if the interceptors spot them, even if they are only slighty faster, where is mossie going to go if its in middle of germany.

as long as interceptor has enough gas its eventually going to catch mossie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

how eventually? how long can it run on full power after a fast climb? Actual tests were carried out and in loss statisics all show interceptors did not often catch them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

your assuming interceptors are always going to have to climb, thats a big assumption.

catching mossies in pin ***** raids and catching groups, when theres literally hundreds of mossies in the air, are 2 differant things.

im assuming that hundreds would have to fly at more or less same time to take advantage of clear flying weather and limited daylight, especially in winter. so they could deliver b17 like punishment to target. dropping 2 or 3 loads every few hours isnt b17 like punishment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

they are always going to have to climb, and they generally did always climb, fighters were generally not scrambled untill the target was clear, planes did not have endurance to maintain standing patrols or afford the fuel. Pin ***** raids and groups, why with right tactics it could just be serval hundred pin ***** raids at the same time. Having hundreds of mosquitos dosnt make them easyer to kill, it just makes chances of downing a mosquito higher, percentage wise it should not vary.

Whats b17 like punishment isnt 4000lb bomb load to berlin not close to a b17? If you wanna go by bomb loads b17 wouldnt hold a candle to the lanc.

Von_Rat
04-05-2006, 01:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">they are always going to have to climb, and they generally did always climb, fighters were generally not scrambled untill the target was clear, planes did not have endurance to maintain standing patrols or afford the fuel. Pin ***** raids and groups, why with right tactics it could just be serval hundred pin ***** raids at the same time. Having hundreds of mosquitos dosnt make them easyer to kill, it just makes chances of downing a mosquito higher, percentage wise it should not vary.

Whats b17 like punishment isnt 4000lb bomb load to berlin not close to a b17? If you wanna go by bomb loads b17 wouldnt hold a candle to the lanc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


ive read plenty of accouints where the fighters were waiting at alt for bombers. radar is the reason, bombers were spotted way before they got close to target. granted reaction time would be less but still many times fighters would be up to alt in plenty of time. defensive fighters had drop tanks to.

having a higher chance to down mossie is my point.

b17 like punishment means delivering alot of bombs in a relivtly short time, so you overwhelm resue repair fire fighting services etc. little pin ****** wont have same effect as having alot of bombs hitting in short time.

Kurfurst__
04-05-2006, 01:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">could mossies with b17 type bombload fly at 30k ft,.and if so how fast. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In terms of hitting Berlin, they could both put around 4000lbs on target. It was possible (and was done) to turn around a Mosquito and hit the same target again on the same night - i.e. up to 8000lbs on target per night. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's nice but the problem with the theory that the B-17's weren't hitting 'Berlin'. They were hitting specified targets with precision and en masse. There is a bit of difference in the effect on the enemy economy between single planes almost randomly dropping bombs, scattered over whole cities and the countryside from a 380mph cruise at 30 000 feet, effectively bombing by chance using a couple of simplistic electoric instruments that the enemy continously jams, and that a compelete formation of heavy bombers bombing the same thing at one time. Just like between randomly poking someone with a needle a thousend places and between thrusting a spear into his stomach. The Mosquito raids were NUISANCE raids, with no real strategic goal or results, just to feed the public with news that the RAF was bombing Berlin again, and not that the heavies just couldn't keep that job up, which was in advance grossly inflated as a 'war winning' operation by Harris.

I guess some of you miss the real idea behind Mosquito development and use. It was pressed forward because it's wooden construction allowed Britian, lacking both resources and capacity to produce at least something that can bomb, a LIGHT bomber with limited capabilities, not because it was some grand idea. Even with the speed, daylight bombing raids had to be given up fairly quickly with the mossie, just like with the other BC bombers, because of the threat posed by the LW se fighters were just too great, and losses actually twice as high as with the normal BC bombers. And so the Mossie was to the LW, a high profile NUISANCE, against which eventually they never bothered to launch any major counter-programme. Despite Goering's rumble, they never considered it as a serious threat as opposed to US heavies.

Second, the raids of the LNSF with high speed Mossies was a result of the failure and eventual defeat of the BC heavies in the Battle of Berlin, with losses being prohibitive of the operation (which operation did not make much sense in the first place). So to keep things in prospect, I would not say that a thousend lbs of bombs equals another thousend lbs of bombs, when one is basically scattered propaganda bombing, while the other is concentrated destruciton of vital industrial targets.

Kurfurst__
04-05-2006, 01:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Interesting you should bring fuel consumption up.

So, 109 has to do a full power climb to altitude to intercept unknown contacts, which he hopes are unarmed Mossies and not well armed Mustangs. He then has to punch the drop tank off and fly flat out to catch them, whilst the Mossie firewalls it. Who do you think runs out of fuel first? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First the 109s, then the Mossie, long before reaching England... which effectively the same results, a lost Mossie. After all, after dropping the droptank the 109 could cruise at around 380mph for an hour or so...

JG53Frankyboy
04-05-2006, 01:26 AM
cruise at 608km/h ?
sure not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
04-05-2006, 01:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The Mosquito raids were NUISANCE raids, with no real strategic goal or results, just to feed the public with news that the RAF was bombing Berlin again, and not that the heavies just couldn't keep that job up, which was in advance grossly inflated as a 'war winning' operation by Harris.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Kurfurst, why do you hate the British so much? So much so you'll do anything to discredit them with whatever propaganda you can muster?

It seems Goebbels doesn't share your theory though.

Joseph Goebbels 13th March, 1945

This evening's Mosquito raid was particularly disastrous for me because our Ministry was hit. The whole lovely building on the Wilhelmstrasse was totally destroyed by a bomb. The throne-room, the Blue Gallery and my newly rebuilt theatre hall are nothing but a heap of ruins. I drove straight to the Ministry to see the devastation for myself. One's heart aches to see so unique a product of the architect's art, such as this building was, totally flattened in a second. What trouble we have taken to reconstruct the theatre hall, the throne-room and the Blue Gallery in the old style! With what care have we chosen every fresco on the walls and every piece of furniture! And now it has all been given over to destruction. In addition fire has now broken out in the ruins, bringing with it an even greater risk since 500 bazooka missiles are stored underneath the burning wreckage. I do my utmost to get the fire brigade to the scene as quickly and in as great strength as possible, so as at least to prevent the bazooka missiles exploding.

As I do all this I am overcome with sadness. It is 12 years to the day - 13 March - since I entered this Ministry as Minister. It is the worst conceivable omen for the next twelve years.

The Führer telephones me immediately after the raid on the Ministry. He too is very sad that it has now hit me. So far we have been lucky even during the heaviest raids on Berlin. Now, however, we have lost not only a possession but an anxiety. In future I need no longer tremble for the Ministry.

All those present at the fire voiced only scorn and hatred for Goring. All were asking repeatedly why the Führer does not at last do something definite about him and the Luftwaffe.

The Führer than asks me over for a short visit. During the interview I have with him he is very impressed by my account of things. I give him a description of the devastation which is being wrought and tell him particularly of the increasing fury of the Mosquito raids which take place every evening. I cannot prevent myself voicing sharp criticism of Goring and the Luftwaffe. But it is always the same story when one talks to the Fuhrer on this subject. He explains the reasons for the decay of the Luftwaffe, but he cannot make up his mind to draw the consequences therefrom. He tells me that after the recent interviews he had with him Goring was a broken man. But what is the good of that! I can have no sympathy with him. If he did lose his nerve somewhat after his recent clash with the Führer, that is but a small punishment for the frightful misery he has brought and is still bringing on the German people.

I beg the Führer yet again to take action at last, since things cannot go on like this. We ought not, after all, to send our people to their doom because we do not possess the strength of decision to root out the cause of our misfortune. The Führer tells me that new fighters and bombers are now under construction, of which he has certain hopes. But we have heard it so often before that we can no longer bring ourselves to place much hope in such statements. In any case it
is now plenty late - not to say too late - to anticipate any decisive effect from such measures.

Kurfurst__
04-05-2006, 01:37 AM
Mx cruise was 595 kph on the G-6, 620ish on the F-4/G-2, 628on the /AS, G-10, and 645 on the early 109K.

Kurfurst__
04-05-2006, 01:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Kurfurst, why do you hate the British so much? So much so you'll do anything to discredit them with whatever propaganda you can muster?

It seems Goebbels doesn't share your theory though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Goebbels...?

WOLFMondo
04-05-2006, 02:17 AM
Really, is that the best you can come back with? :P

hop2002
04-05-2006, 03:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I guess some of you miss the real idea behind Mosquito development and use. It was pressed forward because it's wooden construction allowed Britian, lacking both resources and capacity to produce at least something that can bomb, a LIGHT bomber with limited capabilities, not because it was some grand idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have to forgive Isegrim, he comes from a parallel world, where the Germans were the good guys who went on to win the war. You can't blame him for being bitter that he's found himself in our universe, where the Nazis were evil, and Germany lost the war.

Look at his paragraph above, for example. In his universe, the British made the Mosquito as a last ditch attempt to produce a bomber as they were being crushed by Germany. In our universe, the British produced over 14,000 heavy bombers, over 14,000 medium bombers, and over 128,000 aircraft in total, more than the Germans (and far more by weight)

ImpStarDuece
04-05-2006, 03:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


That's nice but the problem with the theory that the B-17's weren't hitting 'Berlin'. They were hitting specified targets with precision and en masse. There is a bit of difference in the effect on the enemy economy between single planes almost randomly dropping bombs, scattered over whole cities and the countryside from a 380mph cruise at 30 000 feet, effectively bombing by chance using a couple of simplistic electoric instruments that the enemy continously jams, and that a compelete formation of heavy bombers bombing the same thing at one time. Just like between randomly poking someone with a needle a thousend places and between thrusting a spear into his stomach. The Mosquito raids were NUISANCE raids, with no real strategic goal or results, just to feed the public with news that the RAF was bombing Berlin again, and not that the heavies just couldn't keep that job up, which was in advance grossly inflated as a 'war winning' operation by Harris.

I guess some of you miss the real idea behind Mosquito development and use. It was pressed forward because it's wooden construction allowed Britian, lacking both resources and capacity to produce at least something that can bomb, a LIGHT bomber with limited capabilities, not because it was some grand idea. Even with the speed, daylight bombing raids had to be given up fairly quickly with the mossie, just like with the other BC bombers, because of the threat posed by the LW se fighters were just too great, and losses actually twice as high as with the normal BC bombers. And so the Mossie was to the LW, a high profile NUISANCE, against which eventually they never bothered to launch any major counter-programme. Despite Goering's rumble, they never considered it as a serious threat as opposed to US heavies.

Second, the raids of the LNSF with high speed Mossies was a result of the failure and eventual defeat of the BC heavies in the Battle of Berlin, with losses being prohibitive of the operation (which operation did not make much sense in the first place). So to keep things in prospect, I would not say that a thousend lbs of bombs equals another thousend lbs of bombs, when one is basically scattered propaganda bombing, while the other is concentrated destruciton of vital industrial targets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The idea behind the Mosquito was for a light bomber that used as few "strategic" materials as possible i.e aluminium and steel.

It wasn't built because the UK had any problem churning out bombers during the war. In fact, the idea of a wooden bomber was scorned by many in the RAF, but fortunately championed by Air Vice Marshal Freeman. deHaviland aircraft forsaw in 1938 that there was a posibility of war essential materials being in short supply and pushed for the production of a prototype made from wood. While there was never a real shortfall in raw materials (British labour laws and wartime strikes cost the aircraft industry far more production than any lack of steel or copper) the "wooden wonder" went ahead.

Mosquito bomber operations weren't just single planes carrying out pinprick attacks. Even in 1942, when there were just a handful of B. Mk IV squadrons, the Mosquitos made bombing attacks up to 2 squadrons in strength.

By 1944 the Night Light Striking Force was quite a significant bombing force in its own right, and as it continued to expand its Mosquito numbers, its operations grew larger and more concentrated. Operations in group strength of 3 squadrons and 30-50 aircraft were quite common. The largest Mosquito bombing operation occured on March 21/22, when 142 Mosquitos bombed Berlin in 2 waves. Far more than a scattered nusiance or random bombing, most Mosquito operations were precision (for the time) attacks against select targets. Even Mosquito diversionary raids were generally carried out by 6-28 aircraft.

Looking at the Bomber Command break down of sorties, the Mosquitos regularly operated in reasonably large groups: in April 1944 there were 6 operations with 30 or more Mosquitos bombing single targets, in May there were 17 operations with 30+ and in June there were 14 operations with over 30 aircraft. In July there were 8 operations with more than 40 Mosquitos hitting the same target, and in August there were 2 strikes with over 50 Mossies, in September there were 3 more 50+ plane Mossie raids, and 13 others with more than 40. Mosquito strikes got larger and more concentrated as 1944 closed. By November raids of 60+ Mosquitos were happening about 3 times a month.

Yes, there were plenty of diversionary and 'pinprick' sorties of 3-6 planes, more than the large sorties. But the fact is that Mosquito operations weren't just small diversionary raids. They were often full out bombing missions against targets that the RAF wanted destroyed. Targets like Wilhelmshaven, Cologne, Hamburg, Hannover and Stuttgart were all hit by Mosquito operations of 50-75 bombers.

HellToupee
04-05-2006, 05:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">they are always going to have to climb, and they generally did always climb, fighters were generally not scrambled untill the target was clear, planes did not have endurance to maintain standing patrols or afford the fuel. Pin ***** raids and groups, why with right tactics it could just be serval hundred pin ***** raids at the same time. Having hundreds of mosquitos dosnt make them easyer to kill, it just makes chances of downing a mosquito higher, percentage wise it should not vary.

Whats b17 like punishment isnt 4000lb bomb load to berlin not close to a b17? If you wanna go by bomb loads b17 wouldnt hold a candle to the lanc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


ive read plenty of accouints where the fighters were waiting at alt for bombers. radar is the reason, bombers were spotted way before they got close to target. granted reaction time would be less but still many times fighters would be up to alt in plenty of time. defensive fighters had drop tanks to.

having a higher chance to down mossie is my point.

b17 like punishment means delivering alot of bombs in a relivtly short time, so you overwhelm resue repair fire fighting services etc. little pin ****** wont have same effect as having alot of bombs hitting in short time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And in many causes the bombers changed direction eg they flew dogleg to real target, and the waiting fighters never even met the fighters, other roles of the mosquito include dropping window which also caused a few hiccups in the ol radar. Defensive fighters had drop tanks to yes, germany had not the fuel to waste on standing patrols.

stathem
04-05-2006, 05:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
Darn it they were Dog slow!
I had put in that they should have been doing 425kph. However I managed to cut them off at the turn doing only 300 myself.
Interestingly. It's the first time I've seen in game the rest of my flight actually making an attack head on. Normally they fly through and turn. The rest of the attack by my flight was Boom and zoom. Even though they didn't have to.
As you could fly amongst them just picking off as you went.
Another interesting thing was the lack of turbulence making aiming easier. Certainly don't get that tail chasing a box of B-17s.(Doh!)
Only downloaded Uberdemons latest 4.04 software recently.
Now for some more experiments before bed.
Oh and BTW ImpStarDeuce One of Bomber commands presicion bombing missions (Which only happened in April'45 when they thought the Luftwaffe was erradicated. Resulted in the loss of 17 Lancs in one pass by JG7s 262s using RAM Doh!). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what needs to be done is I need to play the role of allied planner and put a mission together for you to fly (icons and exes off, natch). If I get time in my busy schedule and this thread's still going on, I'll try to get one done.

luftluuver
04-05-2006, 05:50 AM
And Dunkelgrun thinks the board has become boring. Not anymore,http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif with Kurfurst's return and his version of history. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif So Dunkelgrun be more careful in the future with what you post. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It was going along so nicely.

FYI Kurfurst, the 1st production Halifax flew on Aug 17 1940. The 1st Wooden Wunder flew May 15 1941, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">some 10 months later </span> than the Halifax. Tell us, what is your source for your twisted version of history.

It is not a 'what was' BUT a 'what if' Kurfurst. Oh yes, the Mossie bomber carried the same bombsight as the othe British bombers. BTW, the Americans did pinprick diversionary raids sending squadron size formations off the main stream.

HellToupee
04-05-2006, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Mx cruise was 595 kph on the G-6, 620ish on the F-4/G-2, 628on the /AS, G-10, and 645 on the early 109K. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea more like 530kmh max cruise on a g6

WWMaxGunz
04-05-2006, 07:12 AM
Isn't there economy cruise different from high cruise about 90% power?

I do agree about views and misinformation. Those Lancasters were made of metal. Perhaps
if the submarines had not been less than fully successful the story would be different.
It was close for a while as Churchill himself noted.

I read earlier about 600 Mossies hitting a single large target (read: city or part of one)
from many directions. Very impressive but if they tried to do that regularly without the
heavies then I think that the LW would have had roving fighters making high Mossie losses
before too long given they probably would have had the oil.

The US and Brit heavies did not hit targets all at once on the big raids. The streams of
bombers went on for hours. Wasn't it much the same with German bombers during the BoB?

All very ugly. Use of the word struggle to characterize the reality is almost obscene.

Doug_Thompson
04-05-2006, 07:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:

why would dropping all at the same moment be more effective? in the end its about tonnage on target, a stream of mossies or libs all at once makes little difference, tho why would a stream of mossies take 24 hours? generally speaking individual groups would all try to be on target around the same time so scrambled fighters dont have enough time to intercept after the first lot drop bombs, the thing is a lib lanc etc may carry more bombs but for the cost and crew of those birds u could have many mosquitos to equal the load and if a mosquito is lost the dammage is less than losing a heavy and crew. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What Kurfurst said.

ImpStarDuece
04-05-2006, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:

Oh and BTW ImpStarDeuce One of Bomber commands presicion bombing missions (Which only happened in April'45 when they thought the Luftwaffe was erradicated. Resulted in the loss of 17 Lancs in one pass by JG7s 262s using RAM Doh!). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not according to Bomber Command they didn't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif . JG7 may of claimed 17 Lancasters (but more likely they would of claimed 4 motor bombers) but there weren't 17 Lancaster lost in any single mission in April 1945, either to flak or fighters.

A break down of major Lancaster losses in April, 1945:

4/5th

2 @ Leuna
2 @ Harburg
6 @ Lutzkendorf (2 from collision)

8/9th

6 @ Lutzkendorf

10/11th

7 @ Leipzig

22nd

2 @ Bremen

25th

2 @ Wangerooge (collision)

Halifax losses were smaller, so it rules out the other British heavies as well.

It a classic case of neither sides claims coming close to the reality of losses.

JSG72
04-05-2006, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:

Oh and BTW ImpStarDeuce One of Bomber commands presicion bombing missions (Which only happened in April'45 when they thought the Luftwaffe was erradicated. Resulted in the loss of 17 Lancs in one pass by JG7s 262s using RAM Doh!). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not according to Bomber Command they didn't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif . JG7 may of claimed 17 Lancasters (but more likely they would of claimed 4 motor bombers) but there weren't 17 Lancaster lost in any single mission in April 1945, either to flak or fighters.

A break down of major Lancaster losses in April, 1945:

4/5th

2 @ Leuna
2 @ Harburg
6 @ Lutzkendorf (2 from collision)

8/9th

6 @ Lutzkendorf

10/11th

7 @ Leipzig

22nd

2 @ Bremen

25th

2 @ Wangerooge (collision)

Halifax losses were smaller, so it rules out the other British heavies as well.

It a classic case of neither sides claims coming close to the reality of losses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeh! ImpStarDeuce.
Don't Know where I got that one from!
I have Hundreds of reference books concerning Luftwaffe subjects. I seemed to have remembered reading this "Fact" many years ago.
A quick look through the Four volume Classic publications ME 262 Didn't come up with anything to back my claim up.
So have to admit was getting a wee bit ahead of myself in trying to make a qick reply on this interesting Forum subject.
Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif