for a Berlin-distance flight it makes sense, as the Mossie is extermely difficult to intercept, carrying as much as a 17 for that distance, not to mention the proven versatility of the Mossie
if lost, you lose 2 men, not 10
more stategic materials saved producing wooden Mossies insteading of aluminum 17sto be used in other types
Packard Merlin production could go into more Mossies (and Spits and maybe even a re-engineered Whirly?)
Wouldnt be as much need for 51s with merlins as Mossies wouldnt need intensive escort as a 17 did
Wright Cyclone production could have went into Grumman Skyrockets, which would have made things MUCH better for the USN at the time, instead of suffering with Wildcats
Mossie FTW!
The difference in speed is not going to make it any more difficult for AA to compensate while they aim. These aren't mach speeds we are speaking of.Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
(I would imagine that it was harder for AA gunners to track a faster target as well).
What should be noted is not so much the accuracy of the guns, but rather the density of the flak beds. There was so much flak being hurled at bomber formations that even a 1 percent hit count brought down many planes.
For the sake of argument i will just agree that a two engine light bomber could carry the same load as a B-17 (though very unlikely).
I still have trouble believing that well positioned interceptors couldn't still catch those planes. Now they are more vulnerable with out gunners or armor.
Bill
The difference in speed is not going to make it any more difficult for AA to compensate while they aim. These aren't mach speeds we are speaking of.Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
(I would imagine that it was harder for AA gunners to track a faster target as well).
What should be noted is not so much the accuracy of the guns, but rather the density of the flak beds. There was so much flak being hurled at bomber formations that even a 1 percent hit count brought down many planes.
For the sake of argument i will just agree that a two engine light bomber could carry the same load as a B-17 (though very unlikely).
I still have trouble believing that well positioned interceptors couldn't still catch those planes. Now they are more vulnerable with out gunners or armor.
Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, IF you get the position right. The mossies speed payed off not in outrunning fighters, but in greatly extending the time taken to intercept as well as somewhat reducing warning time.