PDA

View Full Version : Was the B17 a waste?



stanford-ukded
07-14-2006, 05:39 AM
I've been doing a *little* research the last couple of days, and my points here could be way off. This post is simply to help me learn more from the forum know-it-alls http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


The way I see it, except in range the B17 was completely outclassed by the cheaper, faster and less likely to get shot down Mosquito. Not to mention that when a Mosquito is destroyed only two aimen are lost.

I appreciate that the B17's standard range was around 1800 miles (without "Tokyo Tanks" which pretty much doubled it) vs. the Mosquitos 1200 (although I'm sure the Mozzie could also take extra tanks), but their bomb-load was pretty much identical.


Mosquito: 380mph, 4000lb bombs, 1200+ mile range, 2 crew, lower radar signiture, ability to manouvre out of trouble

B17: 170mph cruise/263mph max constant speed, 4000lb bombs, 1800+ mile range, 10 crew, huge radar signiture, "sit and take it" attitude to getting shot

Looking at the cold facts, I'd have sent massive formations of Mosquitos - proven to be excellent and accurate low, medium and high level bombers. They have the ability to spice it up a bit in how they attack the enemy and are much more likely to get back home.

stanford-ukded
07-14-2006, 05:39 AM
I've been doing a *little* research the last couple of days, and my points here could be way off. This post is simply to help me learn more from the forum know-it-alls http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


The way I see it, except in range the B17 was completely outclassed by the cheaper, faster and less likely to get shot down Mosquito. Not to mention that when a Mosquito is destroyed only two aimen are lost.

I appreciate that the B17's standard range was around 1800 miles (without "Tokyo Tanks" which pretty much doubled it) vs. the Mosquitos 1200 (although I'm sure the Mozzie could also take extra tanks), but their bomb-load was pretty much identical.


Mosquito: 380mph, 4000lb bombs, 1200+ mile range, 2 crew, lower radar signiture, ability to manouvre out of trouble

B17: 170mph cruise/263mph max constant speed, 4000lb bombs, 1800+ mile range, 10 crew, huge radar signiture, "sit and take it" attitude to getting shot

Looking at the cold facts, I'd have sent massive formations of Mosquitos - proven to be excellent and accurate low, medium and high level bombers. They have the ability to spice it up a bit in how they attack the enemy and are much more likely to get back home.

Kurfurst__
07-14-2006, 05:43 AM
Bombload was prertty similiar, except that the B-17 could take about 2-3 times as much you list, and more importantly, not only in an odd way of carrying a single 4000lbs HC blockbuster bomb which had a very narrow field of usefullness vs. GP. bombs.

stanford-ukded
07-14-2006, 05:46 AM
Now you see this is what this thread is about, I was told they could take the same bomb load. Maybe that referred to early B17's - D's perhaps..

Still, Mosquitos were cheaper and required less men / resources. Why not send double the number?

Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HotelBushranger
07-14-2006, 05:54 AM
Well, I'd say German fighters would have been, on the majority, able to intercept both types of aircraft. Therefore, if intercepting Mosquito's it would be fish in a barrel sorta stuff. The losses would be equal or greater, also seeing the B-17 can take a hell of a lot more punishment than the Mossie.

luftluuver
07-14-2006, 06:03 AM
Stanford, the typical bombload for the B-17 was 5000lb for missions into Germany. So even if the Mossies was only carrying 4x500lb bombs there would be 5 Mossies for every 2 B-17s for the LW to try to intercept. Since the LW had a hard time with the B-17s just think what the increase in numbers of Mossie would mean.

A Mossie with the Avro carrier and wing bombs (8x500lb) would be carrying the same load as a block-buster Mossie.

The Mossie also cruised ~100mph faster than the B-17s making interception much harder and would be of a help for the fighter escorts.

ploughman
07-14-2006, 06:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
I've been doing a *little* research the last couple of days, and my points here could be way off. This post is simply to help me learn more from the forum know-it-alls http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


The way I see it, except in range the B17 was completely outclassed by the cheaper, faster and less likely to get shot down Mosquito. Not to mention that when a Mosquito is destroyed only two aimen are lost.

I appreciate that the B17's standard range was around 1800 miles (without "Tokyo Tanks" which pretty much doubled it) vs. the Mosquitos 1200 (although I'm sure the Mozzie could also take extra tanks), but their bomb-load was pretty much identical.


Mosquito: 380mph, 4000lb bombs, 1200+ mile range, 2 crew, lower radar signiture, ability to manouvre out of trouble

B17: 170mph cruise/263mph max constant speed, 4000lb bombs, 1800+ mile range, 10 crew, huge radar signiture, "sit and take it" attitude to getting shot

Looking at the cold facts, I'd have sent massive formations of Mosquitos - proven to be excellent and accurate low, medium and high level bombers. They have the ability to spice it up a bit in how they attack the enemy and are much more likely to get back home. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Freeman Dyson famously did a study during the war for the RAF in which he concluded that Bomber Command should not fly Lancasters with such large crews and all of the mostly ineffective defensive armament. Instead the planes should have the minimum number of crew required to do the job and the savings in personnel and weight would occassion a net increase in performance for the bomber fleet. Perhaps the Lancaster rather than the B-17 is the candidate for replacement by a Mosquito like solution.

Bushie, there's thread roaring away on 'Mossie Intercepts' just here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8091079164)

Kurfurst__
07-14-2006, 06:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
A Mossie with the Avro carrier and wing bombs (8x500lb) would be carrying the same load as a block-buster Mossie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think it would be fast anymore with four 500 lbs bombs carried externally... and speed was it's main defense - no defensive guns at all...

Gathering up large formations of Mosquitos is an entire different matter than single/small groups doing hit and run attacks, it gives a lot more time for the defenders, and makes easier to vector on as well. There's a reason why heavy bombers and light bombers existed at the same time, they excelled in different roles.

Bearcat99
07-14-2006, 06:11 AM
Didnt you know the B-17 won the war? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

luftluuver
07-14-2006, 06:14 AM
No Kurfurst, that is 6 bombs internal AND 2 bombs external.

Why would the Mossies be formed up in large formations?

WOLFMondo
07-14-2006, 06:17 AM
The B17 was easier to mass produce than the Mosquito, which required wood imported from South America (I guess bauxite also was imported from South America) and needed specialist techniques to build. I dare say the B17 was also easier to patch up and rebuild given its construction whereas the Mosquito required a carpenter trained in a very specialised area of carpentry

Escorts: Whats the P51 and P47s' fuel economy like cruisuing at the Mosquito's cruise speed?

The B17 couldn't do the tactical pinpoint strikes, and low level hit and run operations which needed speed and accuracy the Mossie could without escort, but the Mosquito would loose all its benefits in a mass formation at 25,000ft in day light raids, as bomber Mossies can't fight back, just run away. Although raids would have been allot quicker and more difficult to intercept. I think those poor old A6's and A8's would have had a hell of a time intercepting a Mosquito at 25,000ft when they both had a similar speed at that altitude.

I think it could be argued that because the Mosquito filled so many roles, you could divert all production of about 10 different British types all to Mosquito production, but its not like you can take the tooling of say a Beaufighter and retool the factory to make a Mosquito.

ImpStarDuece
07-14-2006, 06:22 AM
A Mossie with 2 stage Merlins and a bulged bomb bay could carry 6 x 500 lb bombs internally on an Avro Carrier and cruise at 30,000 feet at 350 mph on economical power settings or 375-380 mph at maximum continious cruise.

Remember that there are two distinct families of Mosquitos, with quite different performance

1. The earlier bomber marks and the fighter bomber/night fighter marks with single stage Merlins (21,23,25) which had maximum speed up to about 385 mph for a B Mk. IV or up to around 395 mph for some of the later NF marks.

2. The mid 1943 or later bomber/PR Marks with two stage Merlins (72/73,76/77) which had a maximum speed of about 405-415 mph.

stanford-ukded
07-14-2006, 06:26 AM
This was my point, thanks guys for the info. Just imagine hundreds of Mossies, I suppose not necessarily in formation as they dont need the box-style defensive cross fire, at 30,000 feet with 3-4000lbs of bombs each.

An absolute defensive nightmare. Anyone up for testing it on IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ploughman: the reason I chose the B17 as the subject of this thread is I thought the bomb-loads were similar. I thought that the Lancaster took a ridiculous weight of bombs with it... don't ask me how much though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Chuck_Older
07-14-2006, 06:41 AM
A couple things are going on here, stanford:

1) you're looking at this with hindsight

2) you don't realise what doctrine for bombing they were using

and if you like,

3) the USA was the industrial giant, not the UK, De Haviland wasn't in the US


On point one, well, it's nice to be able to look back at leisure, enumerate pluses and minuses, and see what's best on paper. One thing you're overlooking is that the Mosquito wouldn't really have been the best choice "on paper", it would have been something like the B-24, which had capablity in excess of the B-17

On the second point, The bombing doctrine evolved over time. Originally it was intended that well armed heavy bombers could defend themselves. It was also assumed that X number of tons of dropped bombs equalled Y number of civilian deaths, and that area bombing would force a country's population to make their government sue for peace. To do this you wanted, the wisdom went, a heavy bomber with four engines with lots of defensive armament. As it turned out, the B-17 couldn't defend itself; no bomber could adequately do this. To conduct a strategic bombing campaign, the wisdom was: use heavy bombers. Even during the war, this was questioned by aircrews. Richard Bong, the USA's ace of aces, was asked "What's our best bomber?" by some members of the general staff. He replied "The P-38. It only has one guy in it, so it's cheaper on people, it's easier and quicker to build, it has long range, and when we drop our bombs from P-38s, they hit the target, and the heavies can't". Needless to say, he was in trouble for saying that. The Allied Command said: bombers bomb, and heavy bombers are the best bombers. Four engines is best, large crews mean large numbers of defensive guns. One thing the Mosquito cannot boast vs the B-17 is the psychological impact of having all those guns ready to shoot you. The B-17 had a redundancy of aircrew: co-pilot, radioman/navigator, bombardier, gunners, pilot. It was a sophisticated weapon, and it was considered the best tool for the job. Simply put: the Allies were not of the opinion that small two man bombers made of wood were going to win the bomber offensive. They felt that large aluminum four engined heavy bombers would do the job best

Thirdly, how many Mosquitos were produced by Britain? How many B-17s were made by the USA? In any case, would Boeing or Consolidated or Martin have made a plane like the Mosquito? No. Big. Rugged. Powerful. Turned out in big numbers. That's the US plan for making bombers in WWII. The US produced more arms and armament that anyone else, and we weren't building Mosquitos at all. SO were were the droves of Mosquitos going to come from? Even assuming that they would replace B-17s on a one-to-one basis, how would this have been done? And the B-17 was not the only heavy bomber used. How many Mosquitos would need to be built to replace the B-17 and the B-24? Ignoring of course that the B-24 carried a heavier bombload and it would take more than one Mosquito to equal the bombload, how would they repalce the heavies on a 1 to 1 basis? Impossible in my opinion, the production wasn't there.

A final thought: could the Mossies have taken on teh role of the B-17 in the battle of attrition? or could they have withstood the rigors of Big Week? I don't think they could have done either

WOLFMondo
07-14-2006, 06:51 AM
Building them in the US would have meant complete retraining off all the factory staff and completely new factories, a bit wasteful of the exsisting factories and factory workers. Training a carpenter, compared with a sheet metal worker using machines and rivet guns is a totally different ball game.

However, the US did like the Mosquito.

stanford-ukded
07-14-2006, 07:00 AM
Thanks Chuck, very valid points there.

Regarding hindsight, very true. I don't really have a great deal of choice in this matter as my bomber-war knowledge is limited at best, so hindsight is all I have to rely on.

This thread was posted in a very "what if" frame of mind, and your post is very much the opposite of this, which is why it's the more sensible of the two.

I think the most important point you make, one I never even considered, was the opinions of those in charge: "bigger, heavier, more bombs is better than smaller, lighter, less bombs". It's easy to look back now and realise that this was probably the wrong view for them to take, surely accuracy was far more important. Less bombs dropped, but more on target surely does more to a) hinder the enemy war effort, b) to sap morale. Morale will also be lower in the defending fighters - they'll have a much harder time intercepting, and use a lot more fuel doing so.

With regard to actually building the Mosquitos required for such a shift in strategy, this would obviously require the industrial might of the USA. I think some 7000 were built throughout the entire war in Britain, yet *16* B17's were built every single day in the USA. As you say, it would require a huge shift in thinking, and it would need to be an early shift if it was going to have an effect on the outcome of war.

Next, "on paper" is all anyone has to go on in the planning stages of a campaign, and I agree that on paper the heavies would have looked better. However, the huges losses incurred early in the bomber war and the generally innaccurate bombing which relied on huge number of bombs to hit a target COULD have been replaced with planes like the P38 and Mosquito. The point i'm making is that a switch to smaller aircraft would have been beneficial in so many ways, and it could have happened if people like Richard Bong were listened to. I surprises me that pilots like Bong were not listened to in higher regard. During the BoB pilots were listened to very attentively by the brass in changing things for the better.

ploughman
07-14-2006, 07:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:

Ploughman: the reason I chose the B17 as the subject of this thread is I thought the bomb-loads were similar. I thought that the Lancaster took a ridiculous weight of bombs with it... don't ask me how much though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yeah, from the point of view of how to get 4,000 lbs of bombs from Blighty to Berlin with the least ammount of hassle. I understand know, (bangs forehead repeatedly off nearest hard surface).

stanford-ukded
07-14-2006, 07:22 AM
http://www.lonecat.org/pics/afp_pics/durham4.jpg

Not you, I trust http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FlatSpinMan
07-14-2006, 07:30 AM
Didn't we already do this topic a few months ago? I seem to remember the idea. Unless it was IL2 deja vu, in which case I really would be a sad git.

Bobsqueek
07-14-2006, 07:34 AM
but replacing the B-17 with the mosquito would result in a long break in the bombing, and the bombing needed to be continuous to be effective, targets had to be hit multiple times to remain out of action. replacing one type with another was seen as out of the question. Thats why the B-29 never appeared over europe

ploughman
07-14-2006, 07:37 AM
Yes. Next week's the ".50s killed my Tiger tank debate" V5.1. Get your popcorn ordered.

For August we'll be revisiting the Battle of Britain with another "Jerries would've been butchered by the RN even if they'd won the BoB" v2.01. Hristo will rise from the dead and claim the Jagflottes actually did win, just nobody noticed because they didn't massage the statistics correctly.

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

luftluuver
07-14-2006, 08:06 AM
There was a large un-tapped furniture industry in the US. Plasics was not big at that time.

Mossies were made using un-skilled labour (mostly women) in the UK, Canada and Oz.

Since the Lanc had a bigger bomb load and could carry in further, B-17 plants could have built Lancs.

Jaws2002
07-14-2006, 08:20 AM
I'd say in Europe they would have done better with mossies.

In Europe the whole strategic bombing strategy was a huge waste of bombs, crews and civilian lives.

Other then the destruction of Oil production and few isolated cases where they helped bring down Nazi Germany, I'd say the strategic bombing was a stupid tactic to use in Europe.

The bomber crews had the highest number of American casualties during the war. They eclipsed all the human life loss in other armies.

Over Germany and Europe the weather was quite bad for the high altitude precision bombing, and the accuracy was miserable.

Most of the targets the Americans went for were either:

- not hit.

- hit only after many repeated missions. Ploiesti Oil refineries come to mind. The bombers suffered very high loses all the way to the last mission. First bombed in 1942, last I think August 19 1944. It didn't matter since the refineries were overrun by Russian troops a week later.

- hit and destroyed, but in the end it didn't matter for the German war effort. Here we can mention the widely advertised "Ball bearing" raids. The British and American strategist thought the ball bearings can't be stored in huge piles to have reserves for a long war, and destroying the factories would stop the German army to a halt. The Germans actually had huge stocks of ball bearings, and not a single tank or aircraft was not produced because this bombings.

- then is the case where they hit their targets and failed to destroy them. (Reinforced concrete submarine shelters).

Now there were a few targets that were important and taking them out did a good job on the Nazi war effort. Synthetic fuel factories come to mind. This gave a heavy blow to the Nazi armies.

Talking about British Bomber Command strategic campaign. I'd call it's results against German war effort NEGLIGIBLE.
All the Lancs did was to mess up the countryside and cities, and killed a lot of civilians, just to keep the population awake so they won't be as productive the next day. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

In Europe I'd go for tactical aviation any day.

Pacific is a completely different story.

luftluuver
07-14-2006, 08:29 AM
Jaws, American bombing was not that precise either and killed lots of civilians.

Jaws2002
07-14-2006, 08:36 AM
Exactly. Not as bad as the High Command but not far. All WW2 level bombers were lousy in this respect.

A great effect of the American bombers was that they brought the Luftwaffe up so it could be engaged and destroyed by the escorts.

Jaws2002
07-14-2006, 08:40 AM
Remember the B-29's over Japan. They had to come at 5000ft to hit Tokio.

luftluuver
07-14-2006, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
A great effect of the American bombers was that they brought the Luftwaffe up so it could be engaged and destroyed by the escorts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Masses of escorted Mossies would have done the same. The LW would have been run ragged trying to intercept Mossies in those numbers.

bazzaah2
07-14-2006, 08:48 AM
plus all the AAA etc that could have been used productively elsewhere, the manpower, the resources that were used on the development of radar and so on.

I think it was the fact that strategic bombing provided the means by which the Luftwaffe's eventual destruction was effected, together with the resources the bombing stopped being used in other areas that comprises strategic bombing's main use.

Before Overlord it was also necessary to show the home front that everything possible was being done to engage and damage the enemy in his own backyard.

Jaws2002
07-14-2006, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
[Masses of escorted Mossies would have done the same. The LW would have been run ragged trying to intercept Mossies in those numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True.

Slickun
07-14-2006, 08:53 AM
After Doolittle took over the 8th, Jan 1944, the bomber fleet was used as much to draw the LW up to fight, and face the escorts, as any other reason.

Operation Argument was to destroy the LW's ability to defeat an invasion attempt, and it was quickly realized that the LW would go up and fight the heavies, but would not be baited by "fighter sweeps".

I'm not sure Mossies would have worked as well in this role. I'm having trouble figuring out how the Mossies would be used to destroy the LW's ability to deny the invasion in Jan-May 1944, 5 months, which the 8th and 9th AF's DID accomplish in that time.

The B-17's brought em up, the escorts knocked em down.

Oh, to try to minimize the oil campaign is putting a spin on it. It was devastating, the one target that DID cripple the ability of Germany to fight. The Allies got that one right, finally.

Jaws2002
07-14-2006, 08:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:

I'm not sure Mossies would have worked as well in this role. I'm having trouble figuring out how the Mossies would be used to destroy the LW's ability to deny the invasion in Jan-May 1944, 5 months, which the 8th and 9th AF's DID accomplish in that time.


Remember the Hurribombers? The LW didn't like to go out and fight the RAF fighters over chanell, unless they had the tactical or numerical advantage. When the Hurricanes started to carry bombs this quickly changed.

The B-17's brought em up, the escorts knocked em down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Remember the Hurribombers? The LW didn't like to go out and fight the RAF fighters over chanell, unless they had the tactical or numerical advantage. When the Huricanes started to carry bombs this quickly changed.

Bobsqueek
07-14-2006, 08:59 AM
The bombing campaign tied up close to 1 million German servicemen and stuff. thats gotta be something, however it tied up resources on our side. Was it an effective use of resources or a waste of life, I dont think we'll ever be sure.

However, in 1939/40 we could have knocked germany out of the war just by bombing the synthetic oil plants. had we done that, blitzkrieg would have some to a halt. Although whether something like that was possible in 1940 is unlikely.

luftluuver
07-14-2006, 08:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
I'm not sure Mossies would have worked as well in this role. I'm having trouble figuring out how the Mossies would be used to destroy the LW's ability to deny the invasion in Jan-May 1944, 5 months, which the 8th and 9th AF's DID accomplish in that time.

The B-17's brought em up, the escorts knocked em down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Not hard to figure out as the Mossies would be escorted.

panther3485
07-14-2006, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Yes. Next week's the ".50s killed my Tiger tank debate" V5.1. Get your popcorn ordered.

For August we'll be revisiting the Battle of Britain with another "Jerries would've been butchered by the RN even if they'd won the BoB" v2.01. Hristo will rise from the dead and claim the Jagflottes actually did win, just nobody noticed because they didn't massage the statistics correctly.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Yep, seen 'em all and been sucked into 'em all.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Got the campaign medal + bars for each one!

Kept me occupied, though, when I could otherwise have been doing something totally boring and useless, like watching a great movie, going to a restaurant to enjoy fine food or having sex......

Ahem....

The hairy old '.50's vs Tiger tanks' has been buried, dug up and buried again so many times it's really 'on the nose' now!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Best regards to all, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
panther 3485

stanford-ukded
07-14-2006, 09:09 AM
The main problem I can see for escorts with Mosquitos is the high speed - they will lack range to get there and back. Or will they...

Jaws2002
07-14-2006, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bobsqueek:
The bombing campaign tied up close to 1 million German servicemen and stuff. thats gotta be something, however it tied up resources on our side. Was it an effective use of resources or a waste of life, I dont think we'll ever be sure.

However, in 1939/40 we could have knocked Germany out of the war just by bombing the synthetic oil plants. had we done that, blitzkrieg would have some to a halt. Although whether something like that was possible in 1940 is unlikely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In 1940 US was not in the war, and the Bomber command had no guts to go out during the day.
even if US was engaged in war, it had no long range fighters to escort the bombers and Germany was not engaged in the east and had all the resources ready to face them.

British Bomber Command canceled their day bombing campaign for a good reason. Some of their day bombing missions were decimated.
Night bombing missions had a hard time hitting the designated city, hitting a refinery, deep inside Germany, was easier said then done in the beginning of the war.

JtD
07-14-2006, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:

Mossies were made using un-skilled labour (mostly women) in the UK, Canada and Oz. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, but they also required a lot of highly skilled labourers.

The benefit of the Mossie was it used different resources, not necessarily less or cheaper ones than conventional all metal planes.

luftluuver
07-14-2006, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:

Mossies were made using un-skilled labour (mostly women) in the UK, Canada and Oz. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, but they also required a lot of highly skilled labourers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Examples of skilled labour required were......

Irish_Rogues
07-14-2006, 09:55 AM
My question is what were the allies supposed to do until Mossie?

Nobody had a crystal ball and knew that Mossie would come about or if there was even a tiny clue, that it would be so good. In the mean time a plan had to be developed using the resources available, thus the heavy bomber campaign. It's a fun discussion, but you can not honestly question why the heavy campaign was born. So, even if one wishes to argue that once Mossie was a hit everything should have been switched, well that takes time and the war would've been near completion anyway by the time the switch was completed. In the mean time the current plan would've continued and 1943 was really the high water mark as far as the German fighter forces were concerned if my memory serves. Once again a fun discussion and wanted to spend my $.02.

Slickun
07-14-2006, 10:06 AM
Just having a hard time viewing 500 or so Mossies, in early 1944, flying in formations at 250 mph or so, at 25,000 feet, while Lightnings or Mustangs escort them, being the same threat to Germany as the B-17's.

I dunno. Maybe so. I do know this...the B-17 worked fine in that role.

JtD
07-14-2006, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Examples of skilled labour required were...... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The dudes who managed to turn trees into wooden panels that would make excellent high qualitiy airplane surfaces. As opposed to the metal branch, this is not easily done with machines.

You may check Soviet aircraft to see the impact of "unskilled labour", in that case former furniture factory workers, on plane performance. In case of the LaGG-3 it meant that it was so large, the plane sometimes wouldn't get airborne at all.

faustnik
07-14-2006, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
Just having a hard time viewing 500 or so Mossies, in early 1944, flying in formations at 250 mph or so, at 25,000 feet, while Lightnings or Mustangs escort them, being the same threat to Germany as the B-17's.

I dunno. Maybe so. I do know this...the B-17 worked fine in that role. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The B-17s themselves caused a lot of damage to the LW. A lot of LW pilots were killed by return fire from B-17s. The B-17 forced the LW to not only change their tactics but, their aircraft. LW fighters had to carry heavier weapons, which in turn made them more vulnerable to fighters.

Jaws2002
07-14-2006, 10:19 AM
They went for the strategic bombing in WW2 because they never really studied the results of the strategic bombing during WW1.

panther3485
07-14-2006, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Examples of skilled labour required were...... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The dudes who managed to turn trees into wooden panels that would make excellent high qualitiy airplane surfaces. As opposed to the metal branch, this is not easily done with machines.

You may check Soviet aircraft to see the impact of "unskilled labour", in that case former furniture factory workers, on plane performance. In case of the LaGG-3 it meant that it was so large, the plane sometimes wouldn't get airborne at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I imagine that there would have been a mixture of 'skilled', 'semi-skilled' and 'unskilled' labour involved in aircraft production, regardless of the primary materials used for the airframes.

Just how different the ratios would have been comparing Mosquito production with - for example - Beaufighter production; that I could not say. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

From a resources viewpoint I think the main advantage was, that Mosquito production utilized materials, processes, machinery, workshops and - to some extent perhaps - skills & labour that for the most part could not have otherwise been readily utilized building 'all metal' airframes.


Best regards,
panther3485

luftluuver
07-14-2006, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
The dudes who managed to turn trees into wooden panels that would make excellent high qualitiy airplane surfaces. As opposed to the metal branch, this is not easily done with machines.

You may check Soviet aircraft to see the impact of "unskilled labour", in that case former furniture factory workers, on plane performance. In case of the LaGG-3 it meant that it was so large, the plane sometimes wouldn't get airborne at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your making a joke, right? How do you think plywood is made?

Comparing Soviet unskilled labour to western unskilled labour. This must be another joke, right?

p1ngu666
07-14-2006, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
In 1940 US was not in the war, and the Bomber command had no guts to go out during the day.
even if US was engaged in war, it had no long range fighters to escort the bombers and Germany was not engaged in the east and had all the resources ready to face them.

British Bomber Command canceled their day bombing campaign for a good reason. Some of their day bombing missions were decimated.
Night bombing missions had a hard time hitting the designated city, hitting a refinery, deep inside Germany, was easier said then done in the beginning of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

2 group still operated in daytime, but really your asking men to go and die at that time for daytime bomber operations..

and they did have guts, to go, knowing the risks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

i think they may well have attacked some oil instalations..

WWMaxGunz
07-14-2006, 10:36 AM
In post 1 I see some data on loads, speeds and ranges but I don't see for good comparisons
how the needed ranges to hit targets affected bomb loads and therefore numbers of planes
needed.

I do think that from what I've seen that the B-17's could deliver much farther as much load
as the Mossie could deliver to the 1200 mile range. Set the Mossie up for the 1800 mile and
there is that tradeoff of speed and load yet the B-17 could go farther or carry more plodding
along comparatively. And the numbers of B-17's they used, it would take way more than 500
Mossies to touch the amount of bombs dropped. When the trail of bombers is over 10 miles
long in large groups just due to numbers and the Mossies would be many more (B-17 load to
the same range as Mossie is how many times?) then how could intercepts fail to scatter the
Mossies and ruin the mission?

I have read quote from a German fighter pilot that the bigger fear was attacking a bomber box.

I've known a man who did bomb Japan including Tokyo and he stated that most runs were made
at 20,000 and rarely higher. You didn't go lower except to get under clouds. Perhaps the
AAA wasn't as good or as much in Japan as in Germany? I can no longer ask him.......

Were the bombers effective? They shut down much of the German oil production. They shut
down much of vital industries and caused them to move and break up into pieces which slows
the rate of production. They forced a huge effort of Germany into home defense which was
needed vitally in Russia as note the timing of the heavy bombing attacks matching the new
Russian fighters and attack planes were the same year and onwards.
Without those attacks the war would have taken much longer. Russia may have been lost to
Germany. Germany may have then taken the Mideast and the Suez... yeah sure the bombers
made no real difference!

Could 1000's of Mossies have done the same at the same ranges? That's a big stretch.

I know little but what is presented so please, fill me in.

JtD
07-14-2006, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
bla </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a) Be uninformed. Ask polite questions. Get answers. Be educated.

b) Be uninformed. Be a ****head. Remain uninformed.

Your choice.

p1ngu666
07-14-2006, 10:52 AM
the mossies had by far, the best bombs used to target destroyed ratio.

incidently, u wouldnt use mossies in daytime, they where just as good at night, and much safer too.

the mossie was never intended to bring about the direct slaughter of enemy fighters. but to hit the target, and get out.

the role ppl glorify the b17 for, well its basicaly bait.

and american REALLY wanted to make the mossie, but for various reasons couldnt.. same with russia, there wood is different, so u need a different type of construction...

and personaly, i suspect the quality problems of russian fighters and other things, is largely because stalin etc wanted losts. NOW.

stalin was good at motivation http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the achivement of the russian peoples is awsome tho, if u actully look abit closer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Slickun
07-14-2006, 11:01 AM
No one is questioning the value of the Mossie. Quite a design, and it performed all it was asked to do in superlative fashion.

I just think asking it to do the Heavies' role is putting it in a role it is not designed for.

joeap
07-14-2006, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
They went for the strategic bombing in WW2 because they never really studied the results of the strategic bombing during WW1. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er what strategic bombing? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

p1ngu666
07-14-2006, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
They went for the strategic bombing in WW2 because they never really studied the results of the strategic bombing during WW1. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er what strategic bombing? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

there was some, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEBillfish
07-14-2006, 11:37 AM
Well in response to the thread......

Could the British of produced an equal number of Mossies as B17's?

Would the U.S. of built Mossies instead of B17's?

Would the Mossies of racked up as many defensive kills as B17's reducing the LW fighters?

Would the Mossies of been flown like B17's?

etc..


The answer clearly all no.

More so, it really boils down to a similar question.......Could the allies of just flown Spitfires instead of Mustangs as well?.....It as silly a question as Britain was not the only one in the war, nor was any one plane the "end all" of planes. Frankly I miss the point of the thread I guess.

stanford-ukded
07-14-2006, 11:40 AM
If Mossies took over from B17's it wouldn't have been in a heavy bomber role, obviously. The whole point is you wouldn't need the same number of bombs to do equal damage due to greatly improved accuracy.

Lebillfish, there's no need to be quite so dismissive. I'm well aware of the limitations of such an idea due to the responses in this thread - limitations I had not thought of. This is not a B17 bashing thread, it was posted to provoke discussion and educate me in a part of the war I know little about. That is the point of this thread, at least it was when I started it.

LeOs.K_Walstein
07-14-2006, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Didnt you know the B-17 won the war? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL that is a good one!

Wallstein

LEBillfish
07-14-2006, 11:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
If Mozzies took over from B17's it wouldn't have been in a heavy bomber role, obviously. The whole point is you wouldn't need the same number of bombs to do equal damage due to greatly improved accuracy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong........and the physical damage caused was only a small part of the equation. It's also the mental aspect of planes so high you can barely see or hear them.....It's the loss of resources in having to place flak batteries so they'll have range (hence more as a simple skirting in route avoids it)......The fact that fighters must struggle to get to you, on and on.

Sorry, but if what you're suggesting was the case then the worlds governments wouldn't of invested in heavy bombers or used them so long up until recently.........It's only through todays technology that precision bombing as a sole method has become practical.

ploughman
07-14-2006, 11:52 AM
I think it's about how you get bombs from A to B with the least ammount of hassle to the operator, but the maximum ammount of hassle for the customer.

LEBillfish
07-14-2006, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
Lebillfish, there's no need to be quite so dismissive. I'm well aware of the limitations of such an idea due to the responses in this thread - limitations I had not thought of. This is not a B17 bashing thread, it was posted to provoke discussion and educate me in a part of the war I know little about. That is the point of this thread, at least it was when I started it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

since you edited.........

and I'm not being nor do I think you are bashing the B17 or even touting the Mossie as the end all aircraft. Just pointing out some simple facts which today however are not as clear......

How many nations today use F15 or Mirage jets?....The roles of aircraft are much wider now like you're suggesting for the Mossie, and there are fewer manufacturers that really make a product that is used......Yet as I said in my post before, that's just recently for obvious reasons.

stanford-ukded
07-14-2006, 11:54 AM
EDIT: we keep missing each other... posting now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stanford-ukded
07-14-2006, 11:57 AM
What about the huge loss rates B17's suffered? With every one that went down odds were that's 10 more people dead or captured. Carpet bombing is a pants strategy, Londoners proved that morale wasn't weekened by the Blitz, it had the exact opposite effect in bringing them together against the enemy.

I'm also a little confused by your point on flak... Why would the Germans not need to place as many flak batteries to ward off Mosquitos as B17's? Surely they'd want more to improve the chances in hitting a smaller, faster target..? They certainly couldn't simply ignore them, they carry a large number of bombs and could do a lot of damage.

Jaws2002
07-14-2006, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Wrong........and the physical damage caused was only a small part of the equation. It's also the mental aspect of planes so high you can barely see or hear them.....It's the loss of resources in having to place flak batteries so they'll have range (hence more as a simple skirting in route avoids it)......The fact that fighters must struggle to get to you, on and on.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this respect mossie was much harder to intercept then was the B17 formation.

As a LW fighter you wouldn't have the chance for multiple Head On passe on the Mossie. You had one, maybe two chances to bounce them (if you had the alt advantage) and then you won't catch them anymore.

berg417448
07-14-2006, 12:24 PM
You would not need multiple passes against the unarmed Mossie. No defensive fire means you maneuver at your leisure not having to evade gunfire. Once your intercepting fighters broke through the fighter escort by massing at one point you could pick the large Mossie formation off one at a time. They would have to jettison their bombs to evade you.

LEBillfish
07-14-2006, 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 stanford-ukded:
What about the huge loss rates B17's suffered? With every one that went down odds were that's 10 more people dead or captured. Carpet bombing is a pants strategy, Londoners proved that morale wasn't weekened by the Blitz, it had the exact opposite effect in bringing them together against the enemy.

I'm also a little confused by your point on flak... Why would the Germans not need to place as many flak batteries to ward off Mosquitos as B17's? Surely they'd want more to improve the chances in hitting a smaller, faster target..? They certainly couldn't simply ignore them, they carry a large number of bombs and could do a lot of damage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As to morale.....You're speaking of the UK at the beginning of the war, under a government they on the whole were proud to be associated with......In contrast Germany had I'm sure about had enough, and very possibly given some time and losses enough of their own government. I sincerely doubt it had the same effect.

As to flak, first off think of the sphere of a flak gun....Next though I don't know the altitude either could fly at you're never the less suggesting low level bombing....Lead adjustment no biggie, quicker firing lighter weapons, spheres intersecting all would make flak probably much more leathal, as you'd prepare for mossies, not B17's.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
In this respect mossie was much harder to intercept then was the B17 formation.

As a LW fighter you wouldn't have the chance for multiple Head On passe on the Mossie. You had one, maybe two chances to bounce them (if you had the alt advantage) and then you won't catch them anymore. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so.....Simply then station high, as they pass dive and "sit" on their 6....What are they going to do?....Rain their own pieces parts back on you?.....The mossie may have been fast up high, yet it was no jet.....Plus loaded down I'd doubt it could handle very well.

luftluuver
07-14-2006, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
bla </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a) Be uninformed. Ask polite questions. Get answers. Be educated.

b) Be uninformed. Be a ****head. Remain uninformed.

Your choice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I see you have chosen 'b'.

Bobsqueek
07-14-2006, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bobsqueek:
The bombing campaign tied up close to 1 million German servicemen and stuff. thats gotta be something, however it tied up resources on our side. Was it an effective use of resources or a waste of life, I dont think we'll ever be sure.

However, in 1939/40 we could have knocked Germany out of the war just by bombing the synthetic oil plants. had we done that, blitzkrieg would have some to a halt. Although whether something like that was possible in 1940 is unlikely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In 1940 US was not in the war, and the Bomber command had no guts to go out during the day.
even if US was engaged in war, it had no long range fighters to escort the bombers and Germany was not engaged in the east and had all the resources ready to face them.

British Bomber Command canceled their day bombing campaign for a good reason. Some of their day bombing missions were decimated.
Night bombing missions had a hard time hitting the designated city, hitting a refinery, deep inside Germany, was easier said then done in the beginning of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

exactly, thats what I meant, it was practically impossible to do without major casualties. but in theory, if we had knocked them out Germany would have run dry pretty quickly.

scaredycat1
07-14-2006, 12:53 PM
The B-17 daylight bombing campain wrecked the the German air force. By D-day there was there was no Luftwaffe to speak of.

Slickun
07-14-2006, 12:55 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
If Mossies took over from B17's it wouldn't have been in a heavy bomber role, obviously. The whole point is you wouldn't need the same number of bombs to do equal damage due to greatly improved accuracy.

I'm not sure how much improved accuracy there would be in formation at 25,000 feet with 1/2 the bombs going faster.

The trick would be getting the Germans to intercept in the same fashion they did B-17 formations, so the escorts could get to them. They figured out real quick fighter sweeps weren't worth their time.

Aaron_GT
07-14-2006, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The B17 was easier to mass produce than the Mosquito, which required wood imported from South America (I guess bauxite also was imported from South America) and needed specialist techniques to build. I dare say the B17 was also easier to patch up and rebuild given its construction whereas the Mosquito required a carpenter trained in a very specialised area of carpentry </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right about the source of the balsa. The spruce came from Canada, though. It would be wrong to say that the Mosquito used non-strategic resources given the source of the wood. However, you are wrong about the build techniques. There was a large resource of skilled carpenters in the furniture factories of the UK that were under utilised. Some were required for general war-related building work, and some were drafted, but the rest were not needed for creating the latest fashions in furniture, and G-Plan became one of the major contractors for building Mosquitoes. Plus there were a lot of housewives, the retired, etc., that could be trained for the relatively simple task of creating subassemblies, and the Mosquito was the Allied aircraft with the most distributed construction.

Also the Mosquito was relatively easy to repair, with some new jointing techniques and glues being developed to make the process of taking parts of wrecked aircraft and graft them onto damaged aircraft, including jointing on parts of wings, or sawing off noses and fitting new ones.

Chuck Older wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3) the USA was the industrial giant, not the UK, De Haviland wasn't in the US </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was the big problem. Hap Arnold was very enthusiastic about the Mosquito but with de Haviland working on the Mosquito production in the UK, starting it in Canada (near to the source of spruce) and Australia, plus working on the jet engine and Vampire, it simply didn't have spare personnel to set up production in the USA, which is what Arnold wanted.

Jaws2002 wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Most of the targets the Americans went for were either: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The categories you point out were true for Americans or British crews except where area bombing (the USAAF used area bombing on occasion) was employed or where especially well trained crews were deployed until quite near the end of the war when accuracy (with new techniques, sights, and other aids) improved.

luftluuver
07-14-2006, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
If Mossies took over from B17's it wouldn't have been in a heavy bomber role, obviously. The whole point is you wouldn't need the same number of bombs to do equal damage due to greatly improved accuracy.

I'm not sure how much improved accuracy there would be in formation at 25,000 feet with 1/2 the bombs going faster.

The trick would be getting the Germans to intercept in the same fashion they did B-17 formations, so the escorts could get to them. They figured out real quick fighter sweeps weren't worth their time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

tons (avg) required to destroye a V-1 site:

Mossie - <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">39.8</span>
B-17 - 165.4
B-25 - 182
B-26 - 219

Aaron_GT
07-14-2006, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2 group still operated in daytime, but really your asking men to go and die at that time for daytime bomber operations.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


RAF bombers continued to conduct daylight missions throught WW2 in Northern Europe. Strategic bombing, after late 1940, was typically at night, though, until 1945, apart from Mosquitos. Tactical and operational-level bombing was often conducted by the RAF during daylight, including some quite risky operations in 1942-3.

p1ngu666
07-14-2006, 01:51 PM
well, how wide IS a formation of b17s? probably pretty wide.
then, u have the length of the formation, plus bomb spread.

that is your minium "footprint", ie, in a perfect situation that area gets plastered with bombs.

now bombs will probably spread abit on the way down too..

in reality, there wasnt much difference between a raf attack, and 8th attack, apart from the time of day. the 8th area bombed precison targets, the raf pricison bombed area targets.

both are big generalisations http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

oh and u wouldnt fly in formation, the main reason for that was for mutual fire support, no guns, theres the main reason gone...

each crew would make its own bomb run aswell, so if 1 guy gets it wrong, (or something goes wrong..) its not a big waste.

if u want expensive bait, then b17 is good. if u want bombing results, mossie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sergio_101
07-14-2006, 02:56 PM
Cost of a B-17G, $276,000 in 1945 dollars.
Was a B-17 really an effective weapon?
Argue till your blue.
It was the least expensive 4 engined bomber
and the most survivable in combat.

This thread has already been thorougly thrashed
eariler.
A B-17 F/G could carry up to 20,800 lbs of
bombs with externals. (I can feel the attacks coming).
In practice rarely was over 6,000 lbs carried
in Europe because of the ranges needed.

I can put up the argument that it was more effective
to put up a dozen squadrons of P-51Ds with
2,000 lbs of bombs each.

Truth is that the B-17 was a very effective weapon
in two ways.
It tied up vast numbers of German fighters
in the west. Despite the obvious over claiming by gunners
the bombers destroyed huge numbers of aircraft
both in the air and on the ground.

Precision bombing was mostly a failure.
But the bombing was largly a success.
Although it failed to cripple German industry
it achieved a tactical victory.
Germany was forced to spend huge resources
to defend against the bombers and disperse
it's industry.

Over Japan Gen Curtiss Lemay got his way
and tried the stripping of the B-29s to increase
bomb load.

If he tried that over Europe, at night of course,
the crew of a B-17 could have been reduced to 4 men.
No turrets and the deleting of most of the guns
would have allowed a few thousand pounds more bombs.
I did the math once, reduced weight and drag
and the resulting reduction in fuel load would
have allowed 12,000lbs to Berlin.

Max speed and sustained cruise speed would have
been about 50mph faster as well.

Only the tail guns would have been retained.

What if scenarios are fun to ponder. Gen Lemay
proved the validity of the idea over Japan.

The Mossie was a very good weapon.
But it lacked the two edge sword of the heavily
armed B-17.

Oh yea, there were not ever to be enough P-51Ds
in Europe till the Luftwaffe was already defeated.

The idea waited till the Korean conflict to be tried.
It worked well enough.

Sergio

joeap
07-14-2006, 03:44 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 Slickun:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
If Mossies took over from B17's it wouldn't have been in a heavy bomber role, obviously. The whole point is you wouldn't need the same number of bombs to do equal damage due to greatly improved accuracy.

I'm not sure how much improved accuracy there would be in formation at 25,000 feet with 1/2 the bombs going faster.

The trick would be getting the Germans to intercept in the same fashion they did B-17 formations, so the escorts could get to them. They figured out real quick fighter sweeps weren't worth their time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

tons (avg) required to destroye a V-1 site:

Mossie - <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">39.8</span>
B-17 - 165.4
B-25 - 182
B-26 - 219 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source please.

danjama
07-14-2006, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
What about the huge loss rates B17's suffered? With every one that went down odds were that's 10 more people dead or captured. Carpet bombing is a pants strategy, Londoners proved that morale wasn't weekened by the Blitz, it had the exact opposite effect in bringing them together against the enemy.

I'm also a little confused by your point on flak... Why would the Germans not need to place as many flak batteries to ward off Mosquitos as B17's? Surely they'd want more to improve the chances in hitting a smaller, faster target..? They certainly couldn't simply ignore them, they carry a large number of bombs and could do a lot of damage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As to morale.....You're speaking of the UK at the beginning of the war, under a government they on the whole were proud to be associated with......In contrast Germany had I'm sure about had enough, and very possibly given some time and losses enough of their own government. I sincerely doubt it had the same effect.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BF, Germany was VERY proud of their government in 1939/1940. They were happy to see their country rising and doing well again, and they loved Hitlers party for this. Just thought you should know.

Cajun76
07-14-2006, 04:40 PM
It's easy to look back 60+ years in an era of laser and GPS enabled fighter-bombers who can defend themselves to and from the target and say that the Mossie could have done what the B-17 (and therefore the B-24 and Lancs) were doing, but that's rather simplistic.

Just one aspect is the help that Mossie crews got from sources like Oboe for their accuracy. Could we have supported a much bigger Oboe network, or could the Germans have been able to jam and or skew it?

The German's wouldn't have needed large formations of bomber destroyers. Much smaller flights of less heavily armed (and faster) fighters could have been on the hunt for any stray Mossie flitting about.

Think about the planning and coordination that it might take to send thousands of individual Mossies on different missions to attack the same targets if you don't use formations. The statistics we have are for Mossie crews that didn't face the same kind of fight, day in and day out that using them in this way would entail. Would they be as highly trained overall? Well rested? Did Mossie's hang on to their load when threatened and doggedly continue to the target?

There's soo many factors, and too many of them unknown to say for sure. It might be easy for me sitting in a comfortable chair to second guess the things the leadership wasn't even aware of back then, but I don't think I will. They were the ones between a rock and a hard place, and I'm glad I don't have to make those sorts of decisions.

HellToupee
07-14-2006, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
Just having a hard time viewing 500 or so Mossies, in early 1944, flying in formations at 250 mph or so, at 25,000 feet, while Lightnings or Mustangs escort them, being the same threat to Germany as the B-17's.

I dunno. Maybe so. I do know this...the B-17 worked fine in that role. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well they wouldnt cruise in a formation at 250mph, no point to it, whole point of formations was for defensive fire coverage, mossies would be individual find their own way drop and get out at high speed.

Cajun76
07-14-2006, 04:56 PM
<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 Slickun:
Just having a hard time viewing 500 or so Mossies, in early 1944, flying in formations at 250 mph or so, at 25,000 feet, while Lightnings or Mustangs escort them, being the same threat to Germany as the B-17's.

I dunno. Maybe so. I do know this...the B-17 worked fine in that role. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well they wouldnt cruise in a formation at 250mph, no point to it, whole point of formations was for defensive fire coverage, mossies would be individual find their own way drop and get out at high speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is that German fighters came up to challenge the heavies when the heavies were after high value targets. This allowed the escorts to have a go at the German fighters, clearing the skies for tactical bombing that was to play a large part in rolling back the Germans in the West. I don't think the LW would have been whittled down by Mossie raids by D-Day, do you?

Aguila_Azteca
07-14-2006, 05:26 PM
you telling me, you rather put a wooden plane than the b17 flying fortresses against the german thausand+ type 88 German AAA, in day light stratigic bombing over the best defended place on earth?... the mostquito was very well suited for what it was designed, night fighter, intruder missions, pin point targets, their sucess was based on their speed and stealth, if they had come over germany in the hundreths, i am sure they would easyly been tracked down, and slaughtered, soon they would find a need for a tail gun.... lost of speed, more vulnerable..... at the end it would finish up looking like a b17... b17 could only be outdone by the b29, and i dont know how the british bomber would have done in daylight, as they rarely did fly in day.

HellToupee
07-14-2006, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
The point is that German fighters came up to challenge the heavies when the heavies were after high value targets. This allowed the escorts to have a go at the German fighters, clearing the skies for tactical bombing that was to play a large part in rolling back the Germans in the West. I don't think the LW would have been whittled down by Mossie raids by D-Day, do you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mosqutios could also hit important targets, if they came up to challange them they couldnt just mass a large swarm and fly headon into a box they would have to run around chasing mossies all over the place probly easyer to pick off with roaming fighters. Mossie raids would no more wittle down the LW than b17 gunners did, there were also far less mossies, only a few thousand bomber variants vs many thousands of b17s.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
if they had come over germany in the hundreths
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

they did occasionally
Fighters in germany could still fly over france so just moving them wouldnt clear the way for tactical bombers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aguila_Azteca:
you telling me, you rather put a wooden plane than the b17 flying fortresses against the german thausand+ type 88 German AAA, in day light stratigic bombing over the best defended place on earth?... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AAA fired at large formations, big formations of large sized aircraft far far easyer to hit with 88s, than small individual planes.

MLudner
07-14-2006, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Didnt you know the B-17 won the war? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH-sssssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

&lt;whisper&gt; http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
Mo-zus might hear you! You'd be in real hot water then! What with the torture chambers, iron maidens, inquisitors, racks, burnings-at-the-stake and what-nots!

I'm gonna run for cover now! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Sergio_101
07-14-2006, 06:37 PM
Love this thread.
The Mosquito fan boys are mostly correct.
Few understood that be 1944 the fighterbomber
had replaced the heavy bomber much like the
aircraft carrier replacing the battleship.

But as with today, the heavy bomber still has a niche.

Lets play a game of what if?
Take a plane I know well. A P-51D or H.
It can carry 2,000 lbs of bombs and still have
a range of 950 miles.
What if all US Heavy bombers except the B-29
were cancled in 1941 and all resources dedicated
to P-51s?
30,000+ P-51s could easily have been built.
Think of what a 5,000 plane raid could have done?
Bomb accurately then have an excellent fighter to overwhelm
the German figthers.

Hitler may have not been so incorrect in making
the Me-262 a bomber afterall.......
Truth is I never thought that decision was a bad one.

Sergio

ImpStarDuece
07-14-2006, 07:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
Just having a hard time viewing 500 or so Mossies, in early 1944, flying in formations at 250 mph or so, at 25,000 feet, while Lightnings or Mustangs escort them, being the same threat to Germany as the B-17's.

I dunno. Maybe so. I do know this...the B-17 worked fine in that role. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except by 1944, they'd be flying at 31,000 feet at 350 mph inbound at at 335 mph and 36000 feet homebound.

Slickun
07-14-2006, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
<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 Slickun:
Just having a hard time viewing 500 or so Mossies, in early 1944, flying in formations at 250 mph or so, at 25,000 feet, while Lightnings or Mustangs escort them, being the same threat to Germany as the B-17's.

I dunno. Maybe so. I do know this...the B-17 worked fine in that role. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well they wouldnt cruise in a formation at 250mph, no point to it, whole point of formations was for defensive fire coverage, mossies would be individual find their own way drop and get out at high speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is that German fighters came up to challenge the heavies when the heavies were after high value targets. This allowed the escorts to have a go at the German fighters, clearing the skies for tactical bombing that was to play a large part in rolling back the Germans in the West. I don't think the LW would have been whittled down by Mossie raids by D-Day, do you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, kindly. That is, of course, the whole point of my posts. I cannot envision making the Mossie the fighter magnet the heavies were. Not whether the Mossie could cruise at altitude, how fast a mass formation could go etc. Red herrings, not necessarily put there for that function.

My point, from my first post on this thread, is that the Heavies were used as BAIT, to aid in Operation Argument, the defeat of the LW, to make way for the Invasion in June.

Until the oil campaign, that turned out to be a huge part of sending heavies over. It got the LW up, where Allied fighters could get at them.

The B-17 worked just fine in this. I have trouble seeing the Mossie able to get that done in Jan-May 1944.

ImpStarDuece
07-14-2006, 07:31 PM
The Mossie could never of replaced the B-17, not without a lot of foresight and a complete change in strategic thinking from both the British and the Americans.

There is a fundamental difference of approach between the B-17 and the Mosquito, and a fundamental difference in the way they do the same job. We may as well ask if the Mossie could of replaced ALL the bombers: Lancasters, Halifaxes, Beaufighters, Marauders, Mitchells ect.

Asking if the heavy/medium bomber could of been replaced by the fast-light bomber is like asking if you can replace a sledge hammer with a ballpeen hammer: they both hit things REALLY HARD, and their impact on the target is devestating, but they do it in fundamentally different ways.

Different tools for different jobs.

If the Mosquito was the primary bomber type for the RAF, I'm sure the LuftWaffe would of developed better counters to it then they did. It was HIGHLY frustrating for them to have an enemy bomber that flew so fast and so high and was so difficult to intercept.

But if the LW was faced with 5,000-6,000 bomber Mossies and 2500 N/F Mosquito escorts, instead of the 2700 F/Bs, 1900 bombers and 1500 odd night fighters and P/R Mossies that they actually faced, then they would of probably developed different aircraft and different methods than they did, or at least devoted a more appropriate part of the war effort to catching and killing them.

p1ngu666
07-14-2006, 07:50 PM
they would of scrubbed the fighters of lots of things, maybe just 1-2 guns, like the russians did, clipping the wings (how alarming does that sound landing/takeoff) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

oh and those that doubt the mossie vs flak, berlin was the worst target for flak? pretty much yes.

mossies raided berlin MANY times, with few losses. something the heavies couldnt do http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

as people keep pointing out, the b17s where bait. personaly that makes me feel "http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif"

Aaron_GT
07-15-2006, 12:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't think the LW would have been whittled down by Mossie raids by D-Day, do you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Massed Mosquito raids would still be a potent threat and the Luftwaffe would need to counter it with high speed interceptors or more advanced AAA. This would have required resources devoted to it, which would still have skewed Germany's priorities.

Aaron_GT
07-15-2006, 12:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But if the LW was faced with 5,000-6,000 bomber Mossies and 2500 N/F Mosquito escorts, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Such large numbers might not have been required. It was not unheard of for a Mosquito to do two bombing sorties per day, and sometimes per night (depending on length of night) on Germany. Different crews would be used for each mission. Each mission was much shorter, and one of the arguments De Haviland used was that crew and engine fatigue was less per tonnage dropped. This was when arguing for the Mosquito or super Mosquito to be used instead of RAF heavies, though. In the end the 3-crew super Mosquito was cancelled due to lack of official interest in developing a new type, and the lack of availability of a suitable engine that wasn't already earmarked for other projects. When it was suggested that it simply employ Merlins too, it was apparent that the performance would be insufficient. It was suggested that it could have been converted to jet power, but De Haviland was asked to concentrate on the Vampire as a backup to the Meteor instead.

JtD
07-15-2006, 01:34 AM
I think coordinating Mossies into heavy bomber like formations would not only be pointless but also an impossible task regarding coordination of an attack like that.

Btw, the B-24 did carry a larger payload further than the B-17. The B-24 was used in larger numbers than the B-17. Just because the Fortress gets more public attention, it wasn't THE bomber of the war, not even THE US heavy bomber.

It's also funny that you keep pointing out the high survivability of the Mossie compared to the heavy bombers, which is supposed to mean that the losses of large bomber formations would have been smaller, had the Mossie been used in that role. Imho, the losses of the Mosquito are small because it wasn't used in large strategical formations.

Kurfurst__
07-15-2006, 03:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Except by 1944, they'd be flying at 31,000 feet at 350 mph inbound at at 335 mph and 36000 feet homebound. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have difficulties of picturing an aircraft travelling at such high speed, esp. when loaded w. bombs to max weight (which tends to reduce amount of fuel carried on bombers) to have any kind of range or accuracy of bombing.

At such high altitudes above the rated altitude, the supercharger works at full consuming a lot of power/fuel but the engine devlops much less power, making the milage drop rapidly.

There was a reason why bombers flew slow and at around their rated alt, and preferabbly lower if there was weak defences.

Generally, the change from slow, heavily armed level bombers to fast, unarmed high flying light bombers would simply mean the LW would change it's means responce. The place of Gondelwaffen wielding gunboat Gustavs would be replaced by pressurized Gustavs gettin' high on Ha-ha gas (GM-1), literally, the FW 190A seeing much less use or only on the Eastern Front, and Tank's DB 603 projects getting the priority. Action-reaction...

DIRTY-MAC
07-15-2006, 04:07 AM
Havent read all post,
but allthough the B-17 and Mossie could carry
approx the same ordinance, cant it have with the volume to do, Maybe the mossie just coudd carry pretty big bombs as the B-17 could carry the same weight but in much smaller bombs wich
takes up more place internally?

Aaron_GT
07-15-2006, 05:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have difficulties of picturing an aircraft travelling at such high speed, esp. when loaded w. bombs to max weight </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you need to adjust how you picture things, then. The Mosquito was quite remarkable in that at typical bomber combat weights its cruise was very similar to that without bombs. Partly this is a testament to the abililty of the Mosquito to carry much more weight than it could physically fit inside it, as demonstrated by a test for the first cookie-carrying version in which the plane was loaded with 8,000lb of ballast rather than the intended 4,000lb (De Haviland ballasted it by 4000lb, and then the RAF, not realising it had already had the weight added, added the same weight again). In other words the Mosquito could have successfully carried an 8,000lb bomb load if it could have fitted in the bomb bay. This is impressive for an aircraft designed with only a 1000lb load in mind.

The speed figures quoted look to be of a B.XVI. The very late production B. versions (e.g. 35) had even more impressive high altitude speeds.

The biggest problems with high altitude flights were windscreen icing, pressurisation (or lack thereof) inconvenience for the crew, and frequent problems with cockpit heating which delayed introduction of high-altitude optimised B. versions by several months whilst the problems were worked on (and never totally resolved).

[It's also interesting to look at the high altitude bombers other companies were working on in the UK at the time, including an unarmed high altitude version of the Lancaster with a 5th engine in the fuselage to run a supercharging system for the motive engines, cockpit pressurisation, etc. Some of these designs were intended to operate at anything up to 50,000 feet on the return leg, and prototypes of some were built by Vickers.]

Aaron_GT
07-15-2006, 05:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe the mossie just coudd carry pretty big bombs as the B-17 could carry the same weight but in much smaller bombs wich
takes up more place internally? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is very much the case. The Mosquito could not carry large number of small bombs. The B-17 was a bit limited on the size of large bombs it could carry due to the bomb bay design, but was more flexible than the Mosquito. The B-17, for example, could carry several 1,600lb bombs, but AFAIK, the Mosquito would be limited to 1, plus perhaps a couple of 250lbers in the bay. But the B-17 couldn't carry a 4000lber internally, and the external racks were deleted during the F production run, so nowhere to add them there either. In terms of bay flexibility I am not sure what the B-24 was capable of, but the Lancaster was perhaps the most flexible. Most other RAF types (not sure about the Halifax) were limited to 2000lbers at most, much like the B-17.

For area attacks a few 2000lbers plus containers of incendiaries were used. I think it was possible to put 2 250lbers and one container in a Mosquito.

Aaron_GT
07-15-2006, 05:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AAA fired at large formations, big formations of large sized aircraft far far easyer to hit with 88s, than small individual planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the suggestions for massed Mosquito raids (this was examined by Bomber Command as an option) was to not have massed formations, as you suggest, but instead to put a constant stream of Mosquitos, coming in from all angles, over an entire day. The thinking behind this was that it would reduce the problems of forming 2,000 Mosquito streams and also mean that German defences would have to be active for a whole day at a time, causing problems for fighter fatigue and stress on fuel delivery, and a greater effect on industrial production and morale as civilians would have to spend the entire day in shelters.

In terms of fatigue on the Allied side, it would have increased the stress on ATC and those planning the raids, but an individual Mosquito crew would only fly one mission per day, even if the aircraft itself might fly more than one sortie. Given that obselescence or destruction by enemy action or accident of was a more critical factor in aircraft lifetime the extra strain on the airframes in any given time period was considered to be worth it.

In the end it was a controversial idea without sufficient support in Bomber Command, plus expanded Mosquito production would have led to a shortage of woodworkers, much as expanding other aircraft production led to a shortage of metal workers. Mosquito production was at about the highest level that could economically be delivered in the UK. More than that the supply of the right types of timber could not be obtained form Canada in sufficient quantity anyway (the types of spruce used were swapped during production). This wasn't due to a lack of trees in Canada, just that the trees needed to be near sufficient roads, rail, etc., to be extracted from Canada and put on ships to the UK economically with regards to the war effort.

Kurfurst__
07-15-2006, 05:44 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">I have difficulties of picturing an aircraft travelling at such high speed, esp. when loaded w. bombs to max weight </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you need to adjust how you picture things, then. The Mosquito was quite remarkable in that at typical bomber combat weights its cruise was very similar to that without bombs. Partly this is a testament to the abililty of the Mosquito to carry much more weight than it could physically fit inside it, as demonstrated by a test for the first cookie-carrying version in which the plane was loaded with 8,000lb of ballast rather than the intended 4,000lb (De Haviland ballasted it by 4000lb, and then the RAF, not realising it had already had the weight added, added the same weight again). In other words the Mosquito could have successfully carried an 8,000lb bomb load if it could have fitted in the bomb bay. This is impressive for an aircraft designed with only a 1000lb load in mind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You missed the second part of my sentence - 'to have any kind of range or accuracy of bombing.' And here I esp. stress range. Typically, range at high speed cruise is about 1/2-2/3s of that during economic cruise speed. If you do it above rated alt, the case is even worser, and this is regardless of airframe, it's how engines work. As for being remarkable, it's just physics, added weight does not decrease speeds so much as added weight. If weight is added, to only source of drag is from greater angle of attack needed to keep the plane level. If bombs are carried internally, extra drag is minimal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The speed figures quoted look to be of a B.XVI. The very late production B. versions (e.g. 35) had even more impressive high altitude speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I am not questioning the speed figrues, I am questioning if that is operationally viable (range, accuracy). Hitting a whole city during the night nuisance raid and hitting a factory are two other things.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
[It's also interesting to look at the high altitude bombers other companies were working on in the UK at the time, including an unarmed high altitude version of the Lancaster with a 5th engine in the fuselage to run a supercharging system for the motive engines, cockpit pressurisation, etc. Some of these designs were intended to operate at anything up to 50,000 feet on the return leg, and prototypes of some were built by Vickers.] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting thing about that 5-engined Lanc, it's remarkably similiar to what was done on some Dornier 217, there a DB 605 was in the fuselage, acting as a huge supercharger for two bigger DB 603.

Kocur_
07-15-2006, 06:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:

[It's also interesting to look at the high altitude bombers other companies were working on in the UK at the time, including an unarmed high altitude version of the Lancaster with a 5th engine in the fuselage to run a supercharging system for the motive engines, cockpit pressurisation, etc. Some of these designs were intended to operate at anything up to 50,000 feet on the return leg, and prototypes of some were built by Vickers.]


Interesting thing about that 5-engined Lanc, it's remarkably similiar to what was done on some Dornier 217, there a DB 605 was in the fuselage, acting as a huge supercharger for two bigger DB 603. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And to early Pe-8 with similar system!

p1ngu666
07-15-2006, 07:28 AM
i think u can cruise ok above rated alt..
supercharger just needs to produce sufficent boost, for cruise.

most BC aircraft cruised above rated alt, i think..

ImpStarDuece
07-15-2006, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Except by 1944, they'd be flying at 31,000 feet at 350 mph inbound at at 335 mph and 36000 feet homebound. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have difficulties of picturing an aircraft travelling at such high speed, esp. when loaded w. bombs to max weight (which tends to reduce amount of fuel carried on bombers) to have any kind of range or accuracy of bombing.

At such high altitudes above the rated altitude, the supercharger works at full consuming a lot of power/fuel but the engine devlops much less power, making the milage drop rapidly.

There was a reason why bombers flew slow and at around their rated alt, and preferabbly lower if there was weak defences.

Generally, the change from slow, heavily armed level bombers to fast, unarmed high flying light bombers would simply mean the LW would change it's means responce. The place of Gondelwaffen wielding gunboat Gustavs would be replaced by pressurized Gustavs gettin' high on Ha-ha gas (GM-1), literally, the FW 190A seeing much less use or only on the Eastern Front, and Tank's DB 603 projects getting the priority. Action-reaction... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may have difficulty believing it, but thats how the B. Mk XVI operated.

Range with a 4000 lbs bombload at an economical cruising speed of 350 mph was around 1,100 miles, with 50 gal wing tanks. This could be stretched a little further with that larger 100 gal wing tanks and slower speeds. The British Bombing Survey gives a "range for maximum bomb-lift" for the B, Mk XVI as 1370 miles with a 4000 lbs load.

Range at maximum continous cruise of 375 mph was reduced to around 890 miles w/ 50 gal wing tanks.

At 30,000 feet a loaded Mossie drank fuel at about 3 Miles per gallon. Given that a basic load was 497 gal, and generally this was augmented with 2 x 50 gal wing tanks, thats enough for 1500 miles. Take into account climbing to 30,000 feet and 1100 miles @ 350 mph looks completely reasonable.

Remember that the Merlin 72/73 and 76/77 were high altitude Merlins as well, similar to the Merlin 71/74 used on HF Spitfires. Critical alt is 2-3,000 feet higher than most Merlins.

As for bombing accuracy, it depends as much on the accuracy of pathfinder aircraft and target marking as it does on the speed and altitude of the bomber, especially at night. Given the 'deadly dustbins' weren't exactly a superstar of bombing efficiency and accuracy, but the 500lbrs the Mossie could drop were fairly accurate.

heywooood
07-15-2006, 08:57 AM
didn't it just come down to number of Merlin engines that were available?

If so many more twin engined planes had been produced that required Merlin engines, and don't forget that your are talking about spares too, there would have been shortages across the board for all aircraft types requiring that engine. Primarily fighter aircraft!

Granted production of Pratt & Whitney radials could be switched over after re-tooling and re-training factories already running at a very high efficiency, pumping out much needed radial engines - but after a slowdown - production numbers for the inline Merlins would eventually come around...but - oh yeah - there was a war on and we didn't have time for that.

I wonder if in 1941-42 they hadn't already thought of this...I mean, there were some pretty smart guys working as hard as they could to figure out how to win it. Maybe when things are set in motion its better to stay with the program than to keep starting over on a new one every 6 months. We had crews in training on the Boeing and Consolidated birds - not to mention materials aquired and factories running all tooled up and in peak production. Do you know what it takes to cease all that - re-allocate the raw materials - re-tool the plant and retrain the workers, both technical and physical, aquire all new materials...lumber no less and then get all that back up to speed?

Meanwhile - you still have the problem of not having enough Merlin power plants to go around.
I mean -conservatively- you're talking about what...1-2000 more Mossies - thats two Merlins per plane plus spares to keep them all in the air so....10-12,000 more engines...conservatively?

Best just to continue on the established track and try to continue to boost production and keep the units equipped as they are.

luftluuver
07-15-2006, 09:23 AM
Some good points heywooood.

The Willow Run B-24 plant, built from scratch, was up and running in a year.

Allisons could have been subbed for the low altitude Merlins. If the P-38 had been produced in more numbers, which would negate the previous, would there have been a need for the P-51? Less B-17/B-24s would have given more turbochargers for the P-38s.

Also, Lanc production could have been cut back making more Merlins available.

Just comments.

Sergio_101
07-15-2006, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Except by 1944, they'd be flying at 31,000 feet at 350 mph inbound at at 335 mph and 36000 feet homebound. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have difficulties of picturing an aircraft travelling at such high speed, esp. when loaded w. bombs to max weight (which tends to reduce amount of fuel carried on bombers) to have any kind of range or accuracy of bombing.

At such high altitudes above the rated altitude, the supercharger works at full consuming a lot of power/fuel but the engine devlops much less power, making the milage drop rapidly.

There was a reason why bombers flew slow and at around their rated alt, and preferabbly lower if there was weak defences.

Generally, the change from slow, heavily armed level bombers to fast, unarmed high flying light bombers would simply mean the LW would change it's means responce. The place of Gondelwaffen wielding gunboat Gustavs would be replaced by pressurized Gustavs gettin' high on Ha-ha gas (GM-1), literally, the FW 190A seeing much less use or only on the Eastern Front, and Tank's DB 603 projects getting the priority. Action-reaction... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfie is 100% correct here.
The best approach for a WWII fighterbomber
scenario is that a late night/early morning
penetration at medium altitude is made and
bombing or dive bombing at low altitude.

On the return at a high speed while slowly gaining altitude would be for
the return leg.

One point for argument, high altitude fuel
comsumption is offset by the reduced drag.
On a turbocharged plane such as a P-38 or P-47
range will always be best at or near the critical
altitude for the engines, 25,000 to 35,000 feet
depending on the plane/engine combination.

Few piston engined planes could cruise at over 300mph
for any length of time and/or get good range.
mossie was good, but not that good.

Fastest cruise speed for a piston plane (that I am aware of)
was for the P-51D and P-51H, around 350-390mph clean.
That was at 25,000 feet and the range suffered
severly.
Economic cruise was closer to 250mph TAS.

Sergio

Aaron_GT
07-15-2006, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Some good points heywooood.

The Willow Run B-24 plant, built from scratch, was up and running in a year.

Allisons could have been subbed for the low altitude Merlins. If the P-38 had been produced in more numbers, which would negate the previous, would there have been a need for the P-51? Less B-17/B-24s would have given more turbochargers for the P-38s.

Also, Lanc production could have been cut back making more Merlins available. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lancasters could, and were, operated with Hercules as well. Although the performance wasn't as good as with a Merlin, there were enough Merlins so a Hercules version wasn't needed and so additional development wasn't continued with. The Halifax did very well with Hercules, though. But if there had been a pressing need specifically for Merlins it isn't impossible to imagine Lancasters being entirely Hercules powered for UK production, and maybe by a US manufactured radial for Canadian production (US radials were tried in various BC aircraft at various points). The 4 engined bomber designs were somewhat simpler to reengine than the likes of the Mosquito in which the radiators formed an integral part of the design. If BC had also looked at going for a twin-engined bias, though, then doubtless Lancaster production would have been cut and more Merlins been available.

There's also an argument for the P-38, armed as a bomber, with the glass-nose version for a lead ship or even an Oboe/H2S Mosquito for a lead ship, as was occassionally used by the USAAF to lead B-17s might also have been an interesting alternative to the use of standard heavies. In a sense it would have been the WW2 equivalent of the F-16 in terms of multirole capability.

Aaron_GT
07-15-2006, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fastest cruise speed for a piston plane (that I am aware of)
was for the P-51D and P-51H, around 350-390mph clean.
That was at 25,000 feet and the range suffered
severly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Occasionally USAAF P51Bs would be assigned as escort for daylight Mosquito missions by Bomber Command to Berlin and other targets at that range. A frequent complaint from the P51 crews was that they found it extremely difficult to keep up with the high speed cruise of the B.XVI Mosquitos.

heywooood
07-15-2006, 10:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Some good points heywooood.

The Willow Run B-24 plant, built from scratch, was up and running in a year.

Allisons could have been subbed for the low altitude Merlins. If the P-38 had been produced in more numbers, which would negate the previous, would there have been a need for the P-51? Less B-17/B-24s would have given more turbochargers for the P-38s.

Also, Lanc production could have been cut back making more Merlins available.

Just comments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P38 had teething problems like compressability etc... and was harder for low time rookie pilots to manage -being a twin engined airframe- than P51 which won the war. Therefore I don't think anyone thought P38 could replace P51 on the assembly line. Its almost funny.

And if plants could be erected quickly that is one thing - you are still taking engines away from fighters and giving them to bombers.

Now you have not only extended pilot training classes -thus reducing their relative availability to replace pilots lost in combat - but you are also reducing the number of replacement engines and parts for existing combat units....there is a war on - no time to screw around - we have factories running at capacity and trained pilots all in the pipeline - lets not get froggy and start hopping about.

Sergio_101
07-15-2006, 10:49 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">Fastest cruise speed for a piston plane (that I am aware of)
was for the P-51D and P-51H, around 350-390mph clean.
That was at 25,000 feet and the range suffered
severly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Occasionally USAAF P51Bs would be assigned as escort for daylight Mosquito missions by Bomber Command to Berlin and other targets at that range. A frequent complaint from the P51 crews was that they found it extremely difficult to keep up with the high speed cruise of the B.XVI Mosquitos. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First i have heard of that, but the B model had
a slower max cruise speed, by about 20mph.
D model had improvments in the cooling system
as did late P-51B/Cs
P-51H was faster yet, but did not see combat
in any theatre during WWII.

Sergio

heywooood
07-15-2006, 11:04 AM
how fast was a Mossie with external fuel tanks and full bomb load?...To reach the Rhine and Ruhr mfg sectors and the heart of Nazi Germany day in and day out around the clock you would need a massive force -and the German Luft would have gotten to them as would their flak batteries. Just as they did to the Allied heavies - you all sound like Goering with his beloved Zerstorers..."we don't need 4 engined bombers"

Where did that get him? oh yeah they lost and he died. c'mon people - its all ballbearings.

Aaron_GT
07-15-2006, 11:05 AM
From Sharp and Bowyer (perhaps the best Mosquito book out there) the cruise speeds are as follows for versions with 7x series Merlins (including the B.XVI)

Cruise speeds - economical outward, economical return, max cruise in mph TAS, followed by range in miles at economical cruise, max cruise
At 20,000 ft - 295, 280, 349, -, -
At 25,000 ft - 320, 305, -, 1070, 890
At 30,000 ft - 350, 333, 378, 1000, 895

Ranges will be a little longer and cruise speeds a little slower with wing tanks. But as you can see at 30,000 feet the ECONIMICAL cruise is 350 mph when clean, which is pretty much that of the Mustang. With external tanks it would be slower, but so would that of the Mustang.

Aaron_GT
07-15-2006, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">how fast was a Mossie with external fuel tanks and full bomb load? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The figures I quoted from Bowyer were with full bombload and full fuel without tanks. I'm trying to look through the appendices or main body to find a figure for speed loss from the tanks.

heywooood
07-15-2006, 11:21 AM
I guess with the benefit of perfect hindsight - we can say it might have been better to try this or that and it looks like there might have been a better way to bring ruin to the German production and supply werks - but I wouldn't like to think of all those heavy bomber crews as wasted.

Fighter/Attack aircraft like Mosquito were used properly in specific roles and situations that took advantage of her strengths (speed) to the best ability of contemporary strategists and military planners of that era.

Unknown_Target
07-15-2006, 12:19 PM
I noticed earlier that someone said the tactical doctrine that everyone is pushing is not the 2,500 bomber mosquito raid, but instead night/daylight raids with 4,000 lbs of bombs throughout the day.

Now, has anyone considered the fact that with 1,000+ flak batteries and 1,000+ fighters, it's much easier to hunt down and kill one aircraft that has no turreted dfensive armarment, than it is to hit 500+ heavy bombers armed to the teeth? The simple fact is that all 1,000 flak batterries and 1,000 fighters would be trained on a single enemy aircraft at different points in the day, rather than being spread out at a single time.

AN analogy: three hunters are trying to hit twenty deer. They only get a few because they are trying to hit them all, and end up missing a lot. So instead, the same three hunters go out and try to hit only one deer. They not only hit it, they blow it apart, because they have less to aim at.


Just my $.02.

Aaron_GT
07-15-2006, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now, has anyone considered the fact that with 1,000+ flak batteries and 1,000+ fighters, it's much easier to hunt down and kill one aircraft that has no turreted dfensive armarment, than it is to hit 500+ heavy bombers armed to the teeth? The simple fact is that all 1,000 flak batterries and 1,000 fighters would be trained on a single enemy aircraft at different points in the day, rather than being spread out at a single time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 500 heavy bombers would not be in a single formation, but a series of formations many miles long. The RAF night bomber stream concept carried this even further. At any one time only a fraction of the bombers were over the target.

The massed Mosquito concept considered by Bomber Command aimed at having the same number of bombers over the target area at any one time as before, so the fighters would be as stretched in terms of the number of targets. The idea was then to have more sorties per day (either more bombers, or doubling up on sorties per aircraft) to put the same tonnage onto the target on the same day, but over a longer time period. This was something required due to the difficulty of scheduling that number of aircraft, but it was felt it would have the additional benefit of a long period during which Germany would be under raid conditions, requiring fighter sorties over a longer period, more crews required to man the flak batteries over a long period, more lost sleep by civilians, etc.

With regard to the armed to the teeth part, if you had B.XVI Mosquitos (1944 versions) they could be inbound at 350mph TAS at 30,000 feet, maybe over the target at 375mph at 25,000 feet after a slight dive. The argument would then be that the difficulty of interception would make up for the lack of defensive argument. The loss rates of later Mosquito daylight raids were low, but there are so many other factors involved in achieving this figure (LW being under strength, LW concentrating on USAAF heavies, etc) I wouldn't suggest it could have stayed so low if it was all Mosquitos.

BfHeFwMe
07-15-2006, 12:47 PM
Termite MIRV equipped V2 rockets would have won teh war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

heywooood
07-15-2006, 01:27 PM
coordinating that kind of 'flexed' attack scheme is not just difficult - multiple, loose formations arriving over the target area at various times and altitudes and speeds - with any degree of precision, it is impossible.

You end up with nav. errors and incorrect altitudes being flown causing all kinds of mayhem in the confined airspace over the target - and is the weather supposed to cooperate too? CAVU all day long?

Bah - load up your heavies, send them in large formations to the primary and bombs away...day after day night after night until the war is over...in 1941 through 1945 this was the best you could make of a bad situation.

Aaron_GT
07-15-2006, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">coordinating that kind of 'flexed' attack scheme is not just difficult - multiple, loose formations arriving over the target area at various times and altitudes and speeds - with any degree of precision, it is impossible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It was working to a fair degree at night for BC with streams of around 1000, and by 1944 the accuracy was acceptable and comparable to the USAAF's massed daylight raids on typical targets. It would basically be the same over a longer period of time. The big problem would be smoke obscuration of the target as fires would have more time to establish themselves.

Granted pinpoints raids could be conducted by day that could not be conducted at night, but true pinpoint raids were typically done with fairly small numbers.

heywooood
07-15-2006, 02:23 PM
"working to a fair degree" covers an awful lot of ground... I think instead of replacing the large heavy bomber formations with small fast attack bombers in smaller more random formations and scrapping the heavy bombardment scheme entirely, they should have used the Mossie (and other fast attack planes) in smaller groups assigned to specific infantry commanders, to be primarily engaged in localized battlefield infantry support...much like the Spads were used in Vietnam... with all that range the Mossie could loiter a little.

See - hindsight is cool.

WWMaxGunz
07-15-2006, 02:48 PM
High speed runs at high alt equals less accuracy on target.
You don't have near as much time to line up, correct and steady for the drop.
And you could not come in with increasing speed and have any real chance to hit.
Is a Mossie as steady as a B-17? I doubt it.

And spreading the bombers apart means you need more bombsights and trained bombardiers.
This from a man who flew and aimed bombs: Only 2 planes in a box had the Norden sight
at all. The lead and another back a bit. Reasons were they did not want one captured
undestroyed and good bombardiers were rarer than pilots as the bombardier had to be able
to fly the plane as well as being one meticulous SOB. When the Norden equipped plane
dropped, the bombardiers in the rest triggered from that. That is how the USAAF did it.

From what I read, the distance from London to Berlin is just short of 1200 miles. From
one forum the effective range was closer to 1400 miles. Then there's the different models
and just seperating out the mix and match, is it right that the B-17F could take 4000 lb
of bombs to over 2000 miles? Shorter range loads I see without stated ranges are 9600
and maximum 17600 lbs of bombs (600-700 miles?) but not much used... slower em down too
much? I looked at one chart and at 25,000 ft the speed with 6 x 1000 lb bombs is 260mph.

I can say for sure that the LW would rather have faced and fought the Mossies! And for
sure as posted there would have been some highspeed light interceptors just for the job
had there been huge numbers of Mossies built. Unlike the Mustang those interceptors
would not have needed long range fuel tanks. But hey, strip the armor from a 109K with
nitrous and I'd like to see how many Wooden Wonders would be able to hit targets, how
many would make it back. Strip the armor from a 109G-6 for all that matter, or an FW-A6
with no armor and 2 151/20's. It would have been a delight to the LW fighters.

Sergio_101
07-15-2006, 04:15 PM
A mossie from 30'000 feet would likely be
less accurate than a B-17.
Faster you the worse it gets.
The Mossies legendary accuracy was the result of
missions being flown at low altitude.

For the fighterbomber system to work with 1944 tech
you need to be low.
Low altitude in 1944 means a short life expectancy?
Not so quick, the lowest loss rate of any US
bombing aircraft was the A-36. That's the dive bombing
version of the P-51.
Flown in day light missions it was an effective
dive bomber and could defend itself against fighters.
It's missions were all low altitude.

If those missions were planned with today's
hindsight and 1944 planes there would be few heavy
bombers and a lot of Typhoons,P-38s, P-47s and P-51s.
Look at modern war, it's all fighter bombers.
The Mossie would fit in just fine.
Fast and reliable it could be (and was) fitted with
guns.

Back to the thread subject, was the B-17 a waste?
Nope!

It was the worlds most capable operational 4 engined bomber in 1941.
You can not blame the B-17 for becoming obsolete during the war!

Hindsight is great, few understood that fighter bombers
would dominate future conflict in 1941.

Sergio

Sergio_101
07-15-2006, 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 Sergio_101:
A mossie from 30,000 feet would likely be
less accurate than a B-17.
Faster you go the worse it gets.
The Mossies legendary accuracy was the result of
missions being flown at low altitude.

For the fighterbomber system to work with 1944 tech
you need to be low.
Low altitude in 1944 means a short life expectancy?
Not so quick, the lowest loss rate of any US
bombing aircraft was the A-36. That's the dive bombing
version of the P-51.
Flown in day light missions it was an effective
dive bomber and could defend itself against fighters.
It's missions were all low altitude.

If those missions were planned with today's
hindsight and 1944 planes there would be few heavy
bombers and a lot of Typhoons,P-38s, P-47s and P-51s.
Look at modern war, it's all fighter bombers.
The Mossie would fit in just fine.
Fast and reliable it could be (and was) fitted with
guns.

Back to the thread subject, was the B-17 a waste?
Nope!

It was the worlds most capable operational 4 engined bomber in 1941.
You can not blame the B-17 for becoming obsolete during the war!

Hindsight is great, few understood that fighter bombers
would dominate future conflict in 1941.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

carguy_
07-15-2006, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Hitler may have not been so incorrect in making
the Me-262 a bomber afterall.......
Truth is I never thought that decision was a bad one.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Making Me262 a bomber is indeed an interesting idea although only in theory.Upon the circumstances faced in `43 there was no time to think about it.As a project the Me262 was throughoutly tested and provided as a succesful fast jet fighter prototype in late `42 I believe.
Hitler stood by his original idea and declined the Me262 as a fighter priority.His wish to make it a bomber required to make further airframe and engine modifications.This took another year and we wake up in the fall of `44 when it was all close to being over.
The Me262 if applied with haste,could have made it to the front in late `43.Going further on to the 'what if' side,the jet engine problems would have been worked out completely plus those engines used different fuel than their prop brothers.Lufwaffe was still able to stand up in late`43 if a miracle have happened.I think the Wundewaffe all of them waited for was not the A bomb,but the Me262 as a very advanced,heavily armed fighter that was ahead approximately two years from whatever allies could come up with.



Imagine the face of a SpitXIV pilot who first saw a Me262 zoom past him.Then substract 20months from that event. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Very scary if you ask me.

hop2002
07-15-2006, 07:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As a project the Me262 was throughoutly tested and provided as a succesful fast jet fighter prototype in late `42 I believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Me 262 first flew with Jumo engines in the summer of 1942. The prototype was destroyed on it's second test flight in August 1942.

The next 262 prototype with Jumo engines was completed in October 1942.

Galland flew the fourth prototype in May 1943.

It wasn't until summer/autumn 1943 that the prototype was modified to have a tricycle undercarriage.

Above all, the delay in production orders was because engine development was lagging, and the engines were nowhere near ready for production. If the Luftwaffe had gone ahead and ordered 262s in late 1942, they would have been completed and put into storage awaiting engine developments.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hitler stood by his original idea and declined the Me262 as a fighter priority.His wish to make it a bomber required to make further airframe and engine modifications. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were no engine modifications as a result of Hitler's order that the 262 be built as a fighter bomber. The airframe modifications were very minor, and it's worth remembering that practically all fighters were equipped with bomb racks by that time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This took another year and we wake up in the fall of `44 when it was all close to being over. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hitler first asked if the 262 could carry bombs in November 1943. Messerschmitt assured him it could. Hitler ordered it be built with bomb racks. Messerschmitt carried on their production plans, and did no work on modifying the 262 for bombs.

In a meeting in May 1944, Hitler asked how many of the 262s built so far could carry bombs. He was told none. At that point Hitler ordered all future production be capable of carrying bombs, but allowed the flight testing of the fighter variants to continue.

That was the first time Hitler's order that the 262 be able to carry bombs had any effect on the project at all, and it was already late May 1944. In fact, the fighter bomber versions were in production in less than a month after design work started, which shows how little effort was required.

Without Hitler's bomber order, the 262 wouldn't have entered service any earlier. There would probably be slightly more of them flying as fighters in the summer of 1944, because the fighter bomber 262 units wouldn't have been formed, but they were still a long way from being operationally effective.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Me262 if applied with haste,could have made it to the front in late `43. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only as a piston engined aircraft. In reality, German jet engines were not ready for operational service until autumn 1944, and by allied standards not even then.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">think the Wundewaffe all of them waited for was not the A bomb,but the Me262 as a very advanced,heavily armed fighter that was ahead approximately two years from whatever allies could come up with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing is, it wasn't. The 262 wasn't ready for operations until autumn 1944, and then only barely. It's only by ignoring the problems jet engine development threw up that the 262 could have been ready much earlier, but if those problems didn't exist, allied jets would have been operational much earlier as well.

Daiichidoku
07-15-2006, 07:12 PM
B17 vs Mossie tactics cannot be compared

however, it would seem to make more sense to have a fleet of B24s AND mossies...B17s cost too much monetarily compared to B24s in unit cost and effectiveness per sortie, and mossies would mean tieing up more LW air defence and cost less aircrew

plus the cyclones meant for B17s could have instead been used for Grumman F5F Skyrockets, meaning a more effective USN/US Marine fighter force


the me 262 should not have even been

the He 280 was FAR ahead, both chronologically, and had heaps of development over the messer

it certainly could have been in regular service in 43, and although slower, was FAR more capable as a true fighter than the me262 could ever hope to be

the 262 would have benefitted from the He280 going before it, and prob would have had more development behind it, both airframe and engine, and the resulting 262 would have been far better than it actually was

stupid RLM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif...they choked with the He 219 as well

Sergio_101
07-15-2006, 08:23 PM
"B17s cost too much monetarily compared to B24s in unit cost and effectiveness per sortie, "

I suggest you do the research before you post
mr. Daiichidoku .

Unit cost for a B-17 was roughly half that of a
B-24. Operational cost was also about 2/3
per
ton of bombs.

Arguably a B-24 was a better weapon.
Cost was NOT it's strong point against a B-17G.
And survivability was also not as good in ETO
for the B-24.

Sergio

berg417448
07-15-2006, 08:49 PM
Average unit cost for US aircraft. B-17 was less expensive than B-24.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t082.pdf

HellToupee
07-15-2006, 09:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heywooood:
coordinating that kind of 'flexed' attack scheme is not just difficult - multiple, loose formations arriving over the target area at various times and altitudes and speeds - with any degree of precision, it is impossible.

You end up with nav. errors and incorrect altitudes being flown causing all kinds of mayhem in the confined airspace over the target - and is the weather supposed to cooperate too? CAVU all day long?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

flexed attack stream just tell them to take off and go bomb a target, if the navs off well then thats the navigators fault why would a bomber box be better at nav. They managed at night alright like that nav and all.

jarink
07-15-2006, 11:30 PM
Wow, I got in on this thread late!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

My take on the B-17 and it's contributions to the war in Europe is this:

The damage done by the bombing raids was pretty much not worth the cost until mid-'44 (when 8AF could launch several hundred planes on a single raid). By that thime, the writing was one the wall and most of Germany's war production (especially of fighters) was dispersed and cranking out more planes than ever.

What, then, did the heavies like the B-17 contribute to the war?

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">They forced the Luftwaffe on the defensive.</span>
Due to the potential for damage the bombers represented, the Luftwaffe was forced to abandon offensive operations in the west and concentrate an overwhelming percentage of it's strength to defending the Reich. Once the Allies got their escort tactics properly sorted out, they were able to force the Jagdwaffe into a war of atrition from which they never recovered.

I don't think vast fleets of Mossies would have had the same effect, especially flying at night.

ImpStarDuece
07-15-2006, 11:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
"B17s cost too much monetarily compared to B24s in unit cost and effectiveness per sortie, "

I suggest you do the research before you post
mr. Daiichidoku .

Unit cost for a B-17 was roughly half that of a
B-24. Operational cost was also about 2/3
per
ton of bombs.

Arguably a B-24 was a better weapon.
Cost was NOT it's strong point against a B-17G.
And survivability was also not as good in ETO
for the B-24.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Average flyaway cost for USAF Heavy Bombers:

1939-1941
B-17 $301,221
B-24 $379,162

1942
B-17 $258,949
B-24 $304,391

1944
B-17 $204,370
B-24 $215,516

So, it seems the B-24 was around 1/5th more expensive than the B-17 at worst and by 1944 was just 5% more expensive.

CornbreadPattie
07-16-2006, 03:15 AM
Well, I haven't followed this thread past page 1, but I had an interesting Mosquito theory.....


Don't give it to the to the AAF, give it to the USN!

F1D Sea Mosqitoes could have been developed in the US and thus a navalized version might have flown in WWII. Of coarse it would have been lightened and given more powerful powerplants, but it would have been able to take the Avengers place and SBD/SB2C's place as the primary bomber....

It's was so fast at most levels and there would be no need to use dive bombers for your accurate strikes because the Sea Mosquito would be able to outpace it's opponents down low and still make a decent run. It would have to be a short range bomber if it wanted help of US fighters since I'm sure the fuel economy would be harmed in a US carrier fighter.

I guess I don't really mean this seriously, but it was just a thought.

joeap
07-16-2006, 04:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<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 Slickun:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
If Mossies took over from B17's it wouldn't have been in a heavy bomber role, obviously. The whole point is you wouldn't need the same number of bombs to do equal damage due to greatly improved accuracy.

I'm not sure how much improved accuracy there would be in formation at 25,000 feet with 1/2 the bombs going faster.

The trick would be getting the Germans to intercept in the same fashion they did B-17 formations, so the escorts could get to them. They figured out real quick fighter sweeps weren't worth their time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

tons (avg) required to destroye a V-1 site:

Mossie - <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">39.8</span>
B-17 - 165.4
B-25 - 182
B-26 - 219 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again source for the info luftluuver?

mhuxt
07-16-2006, 04:22 AM
Bottom line is here:

http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/preemptivedefense/pdpg4.htm

Seen the numbers elsewhere, don't have a link.

luftluuver
07-16-2006, 04:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Again source for the info luftluuver? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>William Green

Sergio_101
07-16-2006, 04:27 AM
Sources vary as to the "Fly away cost" of a B-17
and B-24.
No matter, Mr. Daiichidoku is incorrect as usual.

Sergio

joeap
07-16-2006, 05:08 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 joeap:
Again source for the info luftluuver? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>William Green </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks will look it up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Slickun
07-16-2006, 06:38 AM
The B-24 was faster and could carry more bombs farther than the B-17.

The argument from the B-24 crews was "The Libs bring you home faster".

B-17 crews countered with "Forts bring you home oftener".

The B-24 was tried by the 8th AF, and found wanting. The type just didn't have the survival capability of the B-17, and in the mayhem of European skies in 1944, that was everything.

In a recent book it was stated that the B-24 could not stay airborne on 3 engines. Is this true? If so, think about that, and compare that with B-17's coming home on 2, and staying up for extended periods on 1.

The B-17 was the plane for the job the 8th had to do.

In the Pacific, where long ranged cruising against less defended areas was the norm, it (the B-24) was ideal.


&lt;edited to add (the B-24) in the last line. Sorry if I mislead anyone.&gt;

Kurfurst__
07-16-2006, 06:44 AM
Out of curiosity, what type of bombsight the Mosquito bomber versions possessed ? STABS or the more orthodox types as on most British bombers?

luftluuver
07-16-2006, 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 Slickun:
The B-24 was faster and could carry more bombs farther than the B-17.

The argument from the B-24 crews was "The Libs bring you home faster".

B-17 crews countered with "Forts bring you home oftener".

The B-24 was tried by the 8th AF, and found wanting. The type just didn't have the survival capability of the B-17, and in the mayhem of European skies in 1944, that was everything.

In a recent book it was stated that the B-24 could not stay airborne on 3 engines. Is this true? If so, think about that, and compare that with B-17's coming home on 2, and staying up for extended periods on 1.

The B-17 was the plane for the job the 8th had to do.

In the Pacific, where long ranged cruising against less defended areas was the norm, it was ideal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Slickun,

the 8th was about 2/3 B-17s BUT in the 15th it was the reverse. Both flew missions in Europians skies.

Aaron_GT
07-16-2006, 08:28 AM
The total loss rate (ETO & MTO) combined was 1.6% for both B17s and B24s.

p1ngu666
07-16-2006, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Out of curiosity, what type of bombsight the Mosquito bomber versions possessed ? STABS or the more orthodox types as on most British bombers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

normal types, and also there was more advanced stuff using oboe etc, which was pretty much like a GPS system, in effect.

im operations, mossies where atleast as acurate as anything else, and fair to say, mostly easily more acurate.

the extra speed would make bombing more difficult, but ull be in the flak less, probably higher up, and the speed would stabize the bombs better..

oh, and BC raids got progressivly tighter in there time over target, as the war went along..

Don_X
07-16-2006, 09:06 AM
All rather academic here; since we have no flyable heavies.

(Did someone mention the "C" word?)

Slickun
07-16-2006, 09:10 AM
luft, I'm away from my Freeman books about the 8th, but I think by the end the 8th was 100% B-17.

I could be wrong. But, the point I was making was that the 8th preferred the Forts over the Liberators, and were moving that direction.

Early on they had several B-24 units.

Sergio_101
07-16-2006, 10:15 AM
A family friend was trained in B-17s, shipped out on one.
Got to Britian and was transfered to flying B-24Ds
after only a couple of training missions.
Flew over France only once and was transferred to
north Africa.
he hated north Africa and B-24s.

Also in the Medeterranian theatre they flew
more missions before rotating, 50 I believe.
He was a command pilot, left seat.
Sorry, no name will be printed.

By the way, he said the B-24 was an excellent bird as long
as you did not have to fly formation.
Formation in B-17Fs was easy.
Oh yes, the 8th flew B-24s for the entire war.

Sergio

Slickun
07-16-2006, 11:22 AM
8 B-24's were sent on a leaflet mission on 4 May, 1945, just a few days before the end of the war. It DOES look like B-24's operated with the 8th until the end.

And, a quick glance at mission reports shows B-17's flying more and more of the missions as the war went on.

heywooood
07-16-2006, 11:59 AM
Boeing production kicked a$$

Consolidated B24 leaked gas...
and its chain driven landing gear was more prone to combat damage than B17s' hydraulics.

So while B24 could carry a slightly heavier load a little higher and faster than B17...the Fortress was more available and was preferred by pilots and commands.

Sergio_101
07-16-2006, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heywooood:
Boeing production kicked a$$

Consolidated B24 leaked gas...
and its chain driven landing gear was more prone to combat damage than B17s' hydraulics.

So while B24 could carry a slightly heavier load a little higher and faster than B17...the Fortress was more available and was preferred by pilots and commands. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Pssssssst, heywood, the B-17 landing gear were electric!
Motor driven!
And they were very reliable for their time.

Sergio

Daiichidoku
07-16-2006, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Sources vary as to the "Fly away cost" of a B-17
and B-24.
No matter, Mr. Daiichidoku is incorrect as usual.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

"as usual", whatever sgt slaughter...

ok, i stand corrected about unit cost b17vsb24

mind you, my books etc have been in storage for some timehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif cant really get to them and check things as id like to

but i do know that for the first several batches (admittedly small production runs) boeing was getting soaked on every b17 they made, and also bear in mind they almost certainly took this by reducing the price to US gov in order to keep and secure production of b17

had they not, the actual cost may have exceeded that of the b24, and scrubbed b17 production altogether


heywood, the b24s fuel leaks was correct, bomb bay doors were often left slightly open to vent fumes...sheesh!

and AFAIK, yes, the b24 carried more, further, and faster, but the b17 actually flew higher

Aaron_GT
07-16-2006, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">boeing was getting soaked on every b17 they made, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true. The contract stipulated a unit cost and on the smaller initial production runs the lack of sufficient economy of scale meant that Boeing was selling them at a loss and it very nearly spelled the end of Boeing.

p1ngu666
07-16-2006, 03:40 PM
b17 was easier to fly in formation, that huge rear fin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

hop2002
07-16-2006, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">8 B-24's were sent on a leaflet mission on 4 May, 1945, just a few days before the end of the war. It DOES look like B-24's operated with the 8th until the end. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, the last major bomber operation I can see from the 8th was on 25th April, which included 282 B-24s.

The last major operations were food drops in the Netherlands, but B-24s don't seem to have been used on those, just B-17s.

Sergio_101
07-16-2006, 05:24 PM
Service ceiling for the B-17F/G was a tad higher
than any B-24.
But it's pointless, both were un pressurised
but both were turbocharged.
Both planes could fly high enough to cause
extreme discomfort to their crews.

But for the record, a B-17F was rated for 37,500'
and a B-24D was rated for 32,000'.

Sergio

Daiichidoku
07-16-2006, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
b17 was easier to fly in formation, that huge rear fin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

early C and D fortresses had "shark" fins

RAF Coastal Command (Fortress I) examples were lost after tail failures

PTO "shark" B17s sometimes featured tail cones removed with black-painted broomsticks protruding to mimic "tail guns"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/b17c-2.jpg

took some time before the B17s were more well-suited to a combat enviroment, both in eq. and doctrine, via some difficult lessons

p1ngu666
07-16-2006, 06:41 PM
yeah, the early forts wherent so great http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

darkhorizon11
07-17-2006, 12:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Hitler may have not been so incorrect in making
the Me-262 a bomber afterall.......
Truth is I never thought that decision was a bad one.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Making Me262 a bomber is indeed an interesting idea although only in theory.Upon the circumstances faced in `43 there was no time to think about it.As a project the Me262 was throughoutly tested and provided as a succesful fast jet fighter prototype in late `42 I believe.
Hitler stood by his original idea and declined the Me262 as a fighter priority.His wish to make it a bomber required to make further airframe and engine modifications.This took another year and we wake up in the fall of `44 when it was all close to being over.
The Me262 if applied with haste,could have made it to the front in late `43.Going further on to the 'what if' side,the jet engine problems would have been worked out completely plus those engines used different fuel than their prop brothers.Lufwaffe was still able to stand up in late`43 if a miracle have happened.I think the Wundewaffe all of them waited for was not the A bomb,but the Me262 as a very advanced,heavily armed fighter that was ahead approximately two years from whatever allies could come up with.



Imagine the face of a SpitXIV pilot who first saw a Me262 zoom past him.Then substract 20months from that event. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Very scary if you ask me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats not entirely accurate. German jet development was encouraged but like any new technology was skeptically looked upon at first. The He 280 was really the first practical jet fighter also produced by Germany or anyone for that matter and was flown in August??? of 1941 or so. It was a bit faster than the props but that was about it. It had a forward tapered ellpitical type wing and H shaped rear empenagge. Really all it had was cool engines the airframe and everything with it was pretty generic. It was a step up, but nothing really too promising and most German pilots pretty figured the war could be won by the props.

As bad@ss as the 262 was it also got off to a shaky start, as an afterthought to building the aircraft the engineers decided to put a third prop engine on the nose of the prototype just in case since the axial flow Jumos it currently carried had proven to be troublesome. It was a smart precaution, sure enough on the first gas turbine powered flight (only in the pattern mind you), both jet engines flamed out, the pilot was only able to save the aircraft and problem himself by starting the recip engine and safely landing the aircraft and the program.

Later tests and tweaks of the engine increased performance but Messerschmitt still opted for the conventional gear design which also proved troublesome. I don't have any references right not but I'll see if I can track down that paper. I found some great sources and info for it into the early days of the Schwalbe. Really, it wasn't just the engines, it was the swept wing and tail design, axial flow gas turbine engines, and automatically extending leading edge slats that made the 262 a cut above the rest.

Simulatenously across the pond we developed our own jet technology. We were a few years behind but due to a bigger budget and better resources we quickly caught up. Remember there were two YP-80 prototypes flying combat trials just before the war ended, LESS THAN 1 YEAR AFTER THE 262 MADE ITS COMBAT DEBUT. And remember after 1943 when Hitler saw the 262 it was rushed into combat (though as a bomber). The YP-80 and jets in general met muchhhh skeptisicm in the United States even after the war, had the YP-80 been rushed like the 262 and other German uber planes it probably could have been flying over Europe around Jan/Feb 1945 less about 7 to 8 months after the 262.

We weren't THAT far behind. Just less driven to implement the technology.

But back on topic... the B-17 a waste? How can that even be considered plausable... It doesn't deserve all the credit surely but definitely played a instrumental part in breaking the back of Germany! Surely you jest

GR142-Pipper
07-17-2006, 01:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
Looking at the cold facts, I'd have sent massive formations of Mosquitos - proven to be excellent and accurate low, medium and high level bombers. They have the ability to spice it up a bit in how they attack the enemy and are much more likely to get back home. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The question that you pose is an interesting one. As a slightly-off-topic aside, where your analogy comes into better play is when the expendables (bombs, missiles, etc.) become "smarter". This has enabled aircraft like the F-15E, F-117, etc. to be quantumly more lethal and extremely cost-effective rather than using B-52's or B-1's for some mission taskings.

GR142-Pipper

Ratsack
07-17-2006, 03:02 AM
Yes.

Ratsack

WWMaxGunz
07-17-2006, 03:16 AM
From my reading the first Heinkel jet was the He-178. But it took Heinkel very many tries
to get anyone interested. He finally got Voss to watch in 1941 (April IIRC, anyone?) and
it literally ran circles around the early FW-190. Voss was converted and wanted those.
However there was a system of politics in the way and Gen. Milsch objected on the grounds
that it used "the American nosewheel" and actually curbed development for around a year.
Funny that while P-38's have a nosewheel that from the book I have the nosewheel was first
a German invention. Anyhow the same politics was finally navigated by Messerschmidt so he
got to finish what Heinkel had started... and where Whittle fits I can't say.

German jets could have made a debute maybe late in 1942 to mid-43.

Hitler was on and off a friend of the Allies with his stupid decisions. The jet bomber
push soaked up engines, materials, money and go-aheads from the 262's. How many great
Arado attacks were there anyway? They were not fast enough to get through to worthwhile
targets and not numerous enough to make a strategic difference. The 262's that could have
been built would have at least made a bigger dent on the daylight bombers.

But then Germany just did not have the resources to win and could not negotiate an end
anyway. Things were insane in Germany due to the war reparations and in an insane situation
there will be insane results. Look at things now, elsewhere than Germany.

Sergio_101
07-17-2006, 03:17 AM
B-52 is now born again.
A B-52 can carry a load of GPS guided
munitions with everyone targeted to
indivudal target!
All "Smart Bombs"!
No more carpet bombing.
Imagine 70,000lbs of smart bombs.....
One plane, a few dozen targets in one run.

But fighter bombers still rule.

Sergio

WWMaxGunz
07-17-2006, 03:32 AM
Sergio... how many A-36 missions hit Berlin or the oil fields or any targets deep into
enemy territory? Had the heavies stayed up near the front then what would their losses
have been like?

And Mossies down low in very large numbers, could they have gotten there and back with
the same losses they did in smaller numbers time after time again?

The waste of the B-17's was IMO the times directed against civilians. Who was that Brit
minister that was so fanatic on bombing German cities? I'm sure that he must have lost
family to German bombs in WWII or WWI (Zeppelins). There must have been some on the US
side who agreed with him though. And on the German side, Hitler and his just got their
rocks off on killing women and children. Perhaps there is a Satan.

WOLFMondo
07-17-2006, 03:34 AM
The mossie on dozens of occasions proved it could strike deep into Germany, even to the heart of Berlin, in broad daylight, hit its target with 100% precision and then get home again with minimal losses.

The B52 has come back to being useful because its not fighting any enemies that are any threat to it. The need for expensive fast and stealthy B1's and B2's designed to penetrate hostile airspace laden with SAMs and cutting edge interceptors has gone. There is no threat to the B52 so they might as well send those up, as a bomber platform, its at the top of its game in respect to payload and loiter time.

WWMaxGunz
07-17-2006, 03:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
B-52 is now born again.
A B-52 can carry a load of GPS guided
munitions with everyone targeted to
indivudal target!
All "Smart Bombs"!
No more carpet bombing.
Imagine 70,000lbs of smart bombs.....
One plane, a few dozen targets in one run.

But fighter bombers still rule.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Easy to imagine. Also that about half of the targets will be mistakes.

WOLFMondo
07-17-2006, 03:47 AM
Thats A10's :P

Daiichidoku
07-17-2006, 12:16 PM
the He 178 was the worlds first jet plane

handling was reported as "good"

the He 280 was the first jet fighter, and was the one that could "fly rings around a 190"

it was more than "slightly" faster than props, and first flew either march 31 '42, or apr 1 '42, depending on the source