PDA

View Full Version : Mosquito vs Flying Fortress



Pages : [1] 2 3

Daiichidoku
12-01-2009, 12:58 PM
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!

thefruitbat
12-01-2009, 01:07 PM
I went b17, because they have 50cals. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

R_Target
12-01-2009, 01:07 PM
ROFL.

BillSwagger
12-01-2009, 01:10 PM
I think you have to consider that more planes were lost to flak on such missions than being intercepted by fighters. For that reason i might want more engines and armor on my plane.



Bill

stalkervision
12-01-2009, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
I went b17, because they have 50cals. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

and count them all! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


your too funny F/b ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M_Gunz
12-01-2009, 01:15 PM
Mossie could carry to Berlin what a B-17 could carry to Berlin? Source please!

Frankthetank36
12-01-2009, 01:21 PM
^this. I have trouble believing that a twin-engine light bomber had the same payload as a four-engine heavy. Otherwise I like the idea of a bomber that is too fast to intercept (I would imagine that it was harder for AA gunners to track a faster target as well).

berg417448
12-01-2009, 01:26 PM
Think about how many more kills the Luftwaffe pilots could have had as they dived on all of those lovely unarmed Mosquito targets. No need to worry about or dodge defensive fire. Yummy!

BillSwagger
12-01-2009, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
(I would imagine that it was harder for AA gunners to track a faster target as well).

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.
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

b2spirita
12-01-2009, 01:37 PM
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).

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.
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.

hop2002
12-01-2009, 01:40 PM
Mosquito loads were typically either 2,000 lbs for the earlier bombers without the bulged bomb bay, 4,000 lbs for those with.

B-17 loadouts averaged around 5,000 lbs. The load wasn't really constrained by range, but by the small bomb bay. For example, only 2 2,000 lb bombs could be carried, or 4 1,000 lb bombs. You could get as many as 12 500 lbers.

So it's fair to say that if you use a Mosquito with the bulged bomb bay it could carry almost as much to Berlin as the B-17.

Dance
12-01-2009, 01:43 PM
With a Mark VI with cannon and Mg's and 2,000lbs too. The other salient point missing from this comparison, is if it's night or day.

Frankthetank36
12-01-2009, 01:44 PM
Well 400mph was comparable to most of the German fighters of the time so unless they knew the attack was coming and already had a serious altitude advantage I don't see how they could have caught the Mosquito.

BillSwagger
12-01-2009, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by b2spirita:

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.

Its also a question of man power.

You have one plane that needs 10 to fly, and the other that needs 2 to fly.

I have 200 men, i could man 100 planes or 20 planes.

It seems these are legitimate questions.

Whats important is how many bombs get to their targets at the expense of losing men and equipment.

How well do you think a light armored Mossie would fair in a Flak bed that B-17s barely make it through?

What if you lost 80 of your 100 mossies, where more than half your B-17s could make it?


Now i have to know if the Mossie was, in fact, capable of carrying the SAME bomb load at the same heights as the B-17.

There is quite a difference in carrying 12 500lb bombs and carrying 2 2000lb bombs.

berg417448
12-01-2009, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
Well 400mph was comparable to most of the German fighters of the time so unless they knew the attack was coming and already had a serious altitude advantage I don't see how they could have caught the Mosquito.


Long range cruise speed with a bomb load would be nowhere near 400 mph.

Dance
12-01-2009, 02:00 PM
The main point is still missing, night or day?

BillSwagger
12-01-2009, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
Well 400mph was comparable to most of the German fighters

please clarify, are you saying that a fully loaded Mosquito can achieve 400mph?
if so, at what altitude(s).


Bill

BillSwagger
12-01-2009, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Dance:
The main point is still missing, night or day?

That would be a huge factor, so lets say day, since B-17s never really flew at night.

Part of me is looking that the math, and could a Misquito even hold 8 500lb bombs, the standard load out of a B-17.

It might match the weight, but not the capacity.

Bremspropeller
12-01-2009, 02:06 PM
They both suck against 262s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

thefruitbat
12-01-2009, 02:09 PM
It couldn't hold eight 500lbs bombs, it just used to take one 4000lbs bomb all the way to berlin instead. 4000lbs of bombs is 4000lbs of bombs no matter how you look at it.

Dance
12-01-2009, 02:11 PM
The Mosquito B MkIX could carry 2 x 500lb bombs under wing, 4 more in the bomb bay attacks were usually carried out at 30,000 feet at 320 mph. Source 'Mosquito in action, Squadron-Signal publications'. 400mph with a bomb load is a bit optimistic.

horseback
12-01-2009, 02:22 PM
Mossies were dependent upon their speed and surprise--both of which would necessarily be sacrificed for massed daylight raids.

Fully 'bombed up' with external shackles to match the Fortress' max load, the Mossie loses a considerable amount of its range and speed, it's major defense against a potential interception.

However, since the massed daylight raids were ultimately bait for the escorts to draw in & destroy the Luftwaffe's day fighter force, the Mossie would have been a less expensive alternative, IF DeHaviland could produce numbers to match Boeing, Consolidated, and their licensees' production of heavies.

cheers

horseback

jarink
12-01-2009, 02:30 PM
The bulged bomb bay only held a single 4000-lb "cookie" bomb, if memory serves. A more normal bombload would be 4x500lb bombs. (There were only 54 Mossies that actually had bulged bays)

According the 303rd Bomb Group's Missions web page (http://www.303rdbg.com/missions.html), these are the loads carried in their B-17s on trips to Berlin on 5 raids during March, 1944:

42xM47A1 incendiaries
10x500lb GP or 42xM47A1 incendiaries
8x500lb incendiaries and 12x100lb GP
10x500lb GP
42x65lb GP

On their last mission to "Big B" in Apil '45, they carried:
8x500lb SAP (Semi Armor Peircing) and 4x500lb M-17 incendiaries

I'll let those numbers speak for themselves for a bit.

BillSwagger
12-01-2009, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
It couldn't hold eight 500lbs bombs, it just used to take one 4000lbs bomb all the way to berlin instead. 4000lbs of bombs is 4000lbs of bombs no matter how you look at it.

Yes, but tactically they are quite different especially when you are bombing factories located near civilian areas like schools or hospitals.
A 500lb bomb that misses is going to be less destructive than a 4000lb bomb that misses.
I'm not sure they cared one way or the other when hitting German targets, but it was a big consideration over France.
My grandpa flew some of those missions over Germany and his accounts portray that they avoided dropping on civilians.
This is quite a different philosophy to what we saw happen over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



can you think of any other advantage to carrying more bombs than less bombs of the same weight?



Bill

Dance
12-01-2009, 02:35 PM
Just to keep things on an even playing field Jarink, at what altitude and what speed?

Interested in the facts and keeping the comparisons even http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And Bill a 4000lb cookie would be less likely to miss after a Mosquito beam guided marker mission. IF we're on a night footing (still waiting to find out).

M_Gunz
12-01-2009, 02:37 PM
The slower plane would spend more time in the flak zone. But then the one that could drop from higher up would
at least avoid the smaller caliber flak though be detected from farther away.

All in all, I'd rather be in the Mossie but IMO you couldn't replace the heavies with twins. Having multiple ways
to hit the enemy is an advantage all its own, a mix of types is better than all the same.

Metatron_123
12-01-2009, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
They both suck against 262s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Interesting you mention this-if the Me-262 is brought into the equation, the Mossie needs an escort too.

M_Gunz
12-01-2009, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I'm not sure they cared one way or the other when hitting German targets,

When they were trying and succeeding to make firestorms in cities they were targeting civilians even in shelters.
They cared, just not the way they did over France.

Xiolablu3
12-01-2009, 02:43 PM
Different planes for different jobs.

ImMoreBetter
12-01-2009, 02:43 PM
They are almost opposite planes.

One was fast. The other was slow.
One flew mostly alone. The other flew in large formations.
One flew at night. The other during the day.
One was not well armed. The other was.
One was made of wood. The other; aluminum.
One is praised for it's agility. The other for it's perseverance.
One bombed at low level. The other bombed at high altitude.

They carried out different roles. Neither of them could replace the other.
If I wanted to blow up a factory, I'd call in a mosquito.
If I wanted to blow up a city, I'd call in the 17s.

Xiolablu3
12-01-2009, 02:49 PM
Just one thing Immorebetter. The Mossie flew a lot in the day too.

It was the Lancaster that mostly flew at night.

Mosquito was a multirole aircraft. B17 a heavy bomber.

Dance
12-01-2009, 02:56 PM
There's a what if discussion going on, not what was Xiolablu3.

BillSwagger
12-01-2009, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
When they were trying and succeeding to make firestorms in cities they were targeting civilians even in shelters.
They cared, just not the way they did over France.

Actually the wording of the accounts seems to suggest they were more concerned with hitting the proper target instead of mistaking the surrounding buildings for factories.

You also have to remember that sometimes there were clouds which meant seeing anything below was difficult or required circling until there was a break in the clouds to get a drop in. i don't see the advantage of flying to a target fast only to have to wait for a break in the weather. If i had to circle over the target area i think i'd want some armor and gunners to ward off any chance of interceptors.

I think they are two different planes that carry different advantages. You have a B-17 that has a specific purpose, i don't think replacing it with a Landcaster or A-20 would be any different in trying to also make its comparison to a Mosquito, but since we are, I'd still take the B-17 into a daytime mission over Berlin.


Bill

Badbet2007
12-01-2009, 03:44 PM
Just read a book on the exploits of a Canadian airman who was a navigator in a Mossie intruder squadron. Short read but very entertaining and gives some insight into the tactics involved. Although tasked as an intruder squadron they did have opportunities for bombing ops.

Here it is here:

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> http://www.amazon.com/Terror-S...Intosh/dp/0773730893 (http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Starboard-Seat-David-McIntosh/dp/0773730893) </pre>

IIRC the author mentions that the Mossie could carry the same bomb weight as the Lancaster. Most of their targets were more pinpoint targets rather than the 'carpet bombing' of the Lancs and B-17s.

Daiichidoku
12-01-2009, 03:48 PM
i read "terror in the starboard seat", excellent read

very amusing anecdote about the "ladder man" at the aerodrome

hop2002
12-01-2009, 03:56 PM
The bulged bomb bay only held a single 4000-lb "cookie" bomb, if memory serves. A more normal bombload would be 4x500lb bombs. (There were only 54 Mossies that actually had bulged bays)

54 Mosquito B.IV bombers were modified to carry a 4,000 lb bomb. So were some of the B.IXs and all 402 of the B.XVIs.


According the 303rd Bomb Group's Missions web page, these are the loads carried in their B-17s on trips to Berlin on 5 raids during March, 1944:

42xM47A1 incendiaries
10x500lb GP or 42xM47A1 incendiaries
8x500lb incendiaries and 12x100lb GP
10x500lb GP
42x65lb GP

On their last mission to "Big B" in Apil '45, they carried:
8x500lb SAP (Semi Armor Peircing) and 4x500lb M-17 incendiaries

I'll let those numbers speak for themselves for a bit.

The weights of those loads:

42xM47A1 = 2,730 lbs
10x500lb = 5,000 lbs
8x500lb + 12x100lb = 5,200 lbs
42x65lb = 2,730 lbs

The Mosquito at 4,000 lbs fits in towards the top end of B-17 loads, in that comparison.


4000lbs of bombs is 4000lbs of bombs no matter how you look at it.

Both aircraft had a problem with flexibility. The B-17 can carry a greater variety of heavy loads, the Mosquito can carry heavier bombs (and heavier bombs tended to be more effective in attacks on industry).


Yes, but tactically they are quite different especially when you are bombing factories located near civilian areas like schools or hospitals.
A 500lb bomb that misses is going to be less destructive than a 4000lb bomb that misses.
I'm not sure they cared one way or the other when hitting German targets, but it was a big consideration over France.
My grandpa flew some of those missions over Germany and his accounts portray that they avoided dropping on civilians.

Standing orders for the 8th AF said that if they couldn't find their precise target, they could bomb any city positively identified as being in Germany. They frequently carried out deliberate area bombing attacks, using large percentages of incendiaries and dropping them over German city centres using radar bombing aids.


please clarify, are you saying that a fully loaded Mosquito can achieve 400mph?
if so, at what altitude(s)

According to BC, it could achieve just over 400 mph at around 28,000 ft.

Trinity_Jay
12-01-2009, 04:09 PM
Had done some reading on this very subject for some time and it is believed that the versatile Mosquito could carry the same - or near - heavy payload to Berlin and back with two crew and a greater rate of survival. Remember it was fast and agile: taking punishment does not come into the equation.

Indeed, it is alleged that a US reporter was present at a Mosquito raid as they took off and was surprised that they were heading to Berlin on a raid similar to that expected of the B-17. Said journalist did not think it was wise to report on such facts as a possible damaging effect on the US war effort, especially the B-17 and the use of so many men on a single, slow, but heavily defended machine.

That said, I cannot find anything on why the Mosquito was never used en masse for such operations.

And yep, I love both planes.

M_Gunz
12-01-2009, 04:10 PM
Dresden, Hamburg, Kassel, many others in Germany and lot of Japanese cities including Tokyo, civilians were
the target and death count estimates were the measure of success.

Arthur "Bomber" Harris was out for payback, simple as that. The Blitz didn't stick to factories and ports
only either, the V-1's and V-2's were targeted on cities, it was total war.

We've had an account posted here (or was it a link?) from a very famous gentleman who later was a big name
at Princeton U about what he did just out of school in WWII working for British Intelligence. The goal of
the firestorms was to kill German civilians en masse to put pressure to end the war. It worked as well for
Britain as the Blitz did for Germany; the people hardened more in their resolve to fight on.

IIRC it might have been Waldo who posted that one. Wish I could remember who wrote the account.


The attack during the last week of July, 1943, Operation Gomorrah, created one of the greatest firestorms raised by the RAF and United States Army Air Force in WWII,[2] killing roughly 50,000 civilians in Hamburg and practically destroying the entire city. As with the bombing of other cities, the RAF and USAAF bombings of Hamburg employed a number of revolutionary[citation needed] strategies, including bombing the city center first in order to draw in the city's entire fire-fighting force, then dropping delayed action high-explosives in a concentric ring around the center, filling the streets with rubble and trapping the firefighters while they worked, ultimately incinerating them. This was followed by the dropping of further napalm and white-phosphorus incendiaries in a second concentric ring outside the first, facilitating unhampered burning in the remaining outer city. The circular bombing pattern[citation needed], combined with a few days of unusually warm weather, was fundamental to creating the necessary vortex and whirling updraft of super-heated air needed to create the 1,500-foot-high tornado of fire. Various other new techniques and devices were instrumental as well, such as (e.g., area bombing), tactics (Pathfinders), and technologies (H2S radar), and 'Window' - clouds of shredded tinfoil dropped by pathfinders preceding the bomber stream in order to completely cloud German radar.


The Bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Army Air Force (USAAF) between 13 February and 15 February 1945 remains one of the most controversial Allied actions of the Second World War. In four raids, 1,300 heavy bombers dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city, the Baroque capital of the German state of Saxony. The resulting firestorm destroyed 39 square kilometres (15 sq mi) of the city centre.[1]

List of cities that had firestorms, look for the 1940-1945 dates. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestorm)

Hamburg:

The bombings culminated in the spawning of the so-called "Feuersturm" (firestorm). Quite literally a tornado of fire, this phenomenon created a huge outdoor blast furnace, containing winds of up to 240 km/h (150 mph) and reaching temperatures of 800 °C (1,500 °F). It caused asphalt on the streets to burst into flame, cooked people to death in air-raid shelters, sucked pedestrians off the sidewalks like leaves into a vacuum cleaner and incinerated some eight square miles (21 km²) of the city. Most of the 40,000 casualties caused by Operation Gomorrah happened on this single night.


In 1945, Tokyo had an average 103,000 inhabitants per square mile and peak levels as high as 135,000 per square mile, the highest density of any industrial city in the world. With firefighting measures ludicrously inadequate to the task, 15.8 square miles (41 km2) of the city were destroyed on a night when fierce winds whipped the flames and walls of fire blocked tens of thousands fleeing for their lives. An estimated 1.5 million people lived in the burned out areas.[9]

R_Target
12-01-2009, 04:33 PM
A better question would be why didn't they replace Lancasters with Mosquitos?

Gibbage1
12-01-2009, 04:41 PM
The question I have is COULD the Mossy reach Berlin and back with a full 4000lb payload? Lots of max ranges are with minimal bomb load. The more weight you take, the less range you had. Max bomb load for a B-17 was 8000lb, twice that of the Mossy, but its long range load was only 4500lb. Did the same apply for the Mossy?

Also, how many trees would it take to replace 12,000 B-17's? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

icrash
12-01-2009, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
can you think of any other advantage to carrying more bombs than less bombs of the same weight?


Well if the target was a railyard, more bombs means I could spread out 4000lbs of destruction over a bigger area than putting it all in one place. It might also be the difference of getting a least a bomb on target as opposed to a complete miss if they were released too soon.

jarink
12-01-2009, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Dance:
Just to keep things on an even playing field Jarink, at what altitude and what speed?

Interested in the facts and keeping the comparisons even http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Those missions ranged between 24,000 and 27,000 feet. Speed wasn't mentioned, but I'd guess somewhere between 160-180mph, which was normal cruising speed for deep penetrations like Berlin.


And Bill a 4000lb cookie would be less likely to miss after a Mosquito beam guided marker mission. IF we're on a night footing (still waiting to find out).

When dropped from over 20,000 feet, I doubt it would be any more or less accurate than a 500 or 1000lb GP bomb no matter what plane's dropping it. There's just too many variables in wind direction, speed and other ballistics factors for real accuracy from that high with dumb bombs. If you're dropping from between 20,000 to 10,000 feet in daylight any time during 1943-45, you're probably boned no matter what plane you're flying. Many of the Mossie's most successful missions were flown from much lower altitudes (including treetop height), which accounts a great deal for the increased accuracy.

I was somewhat surprised at the number of smaller (100lb and 65lb) GP bombs that were used. I guess it's similar to the thought behind bomblets of today: many smaller bombs do a much better job of covering a large "soft" target than a few large bombs. 100-lbers would be more than big enough to splinter wooden structures and collapse factory roofs. I can only speculate that the SAP bombs on the late mission were supposed to hit bunkers and other hardened structures?

It's still an apples and oranges comparison.

jarink
12-01-2009, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The bulged bomb bay only held a single 4000-lb "cookie" bomb, if memory serves. A more normal bombload would be 4x500lb bombs. (There were only 54 Mossies that actually had bulged bays)

54 Mosquito B.IV bombers were modified to carry a 4,000 lb bomb. So were some of the B.IXs and all 402 of the B.XVIs.


According the 303rd Bomb Group's Missions web page, these are the loads carried in their B-17s on trips to Berlin on 5 raids during March, 1944:

42xM47A1 incendiaries
10x500lb GP or 42xM47A1 incendiaries
8x500lb incendiaries and 12x100lb GP
10x500lb GP
42x65lb GP

On their last mission to "Big B" in Apil '45, they carried:
8x500lb SAP (Semi Armor Peircing) and 4x500lb M-17 incendiaries

I'll let those numbers speak for themselves for a bit.

The weights of those loads:

42xM47A1 = 2,730 lbs
10x500lb = 5,000 lbs
8x500lb + 12x100lb = 5,200 lbs
42x65lb = 2,730 lbs

The Mosquito at 4,000 lbs fits in towards the top end of B-17 loads, in that comparison.


4000lbs of bombs is 4000lbs of bombs no matter how you look at it.

Both aircraft had a problem with flexibility. The B-17 can carry a greater variety of heavy loads, the Mosquito can carry heavier bombs (and heavier bombs tended to be more effective in attacks on industry). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake on the number of big belly Mossies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

As for the weights of bombs used, I think you're missing an important point. It wasn't so much how heavy the bombloads were, but rather the number and types of bombs used. (By the way, the reason they didn't load up more of the small bombs was due to lack of bomb shackles in the bomb bay.) The B-17 could obviously easily truck and dump 5000 pounds of bombs on Berlin. So why didn't they carry 10x500lb bombs on every trip?

Because they figured out that the large GP bombs were not always the most effective means of destroying the target.

I can't find a reference to it at the moment(help, anyone?), but I know I've heard of studies done by the USAAF that determined that large (1000-2000lb) bombs weren't all that great when attacking large, open factories. They simply blew the roofs off, leaving large areas of machinery below still usable. Using smaller bombs, combined with incendiaries, was much more effective.

Rjel
12-01-2009, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
They both suck against 262s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda. But didn't. Didn't stop the Mosquitoes from getting through. Didn't stop the USAAF heavy bombers either. And fortunately for the Allies, didn't stop the invasion of France. Interesting plane, revolutionary to be sure. But, for it's intended purpose of regaining air superiority over Germany, it was a complete failure.

Gibbage1
12-01-2009, 09:03 PM
Nobody answered me about IF the Mossy could reach Berlin and back with a full bomb load.

ImpStarDuece
12-01-2009, 11:44 PM
With 4,000 lbs?

Yes. Quite easily. Sometimes twice a night.

R_Target
12-02-2009, 01:18 AM
It seems they should have retired the Lanc and just sent more Mosquitos.

Freiwillige
12-02-2009, 01:41 AM
It all imply's that the Air Marshals and Generals didn't know what they were doing. Obviously they did and won the war with thier knowledge.

If it was an option they thought it out. The B-17\B-24 strategy offered them more than the Mosquito strategy.

BillSwagger
12-02-2009, 02:17 AM
By 1945 the western front had shifted far enough back where Germany was able to double or triple up its artillery and anti aircraft guns over the spread of their controlled battle field. In short, the flak density had doubled or tripled so I still say it goes back to how much flak these planes could width stand. sure you have your payloads i just don't see a light two engined bomber holding together well under the same types of battle stress that the B-27 encountered.
Something doesn't quite add up here either, if indeed the Mistquito could get to berlin and back carrying the same payload at the same altitudes, i have to wonder why use heavier bombers at all. There is a missing fact here somewhere which probably has more to do with the range than anything.



Bill

hop2002
12-02-2009, 03:19 AM
Yes the Mossie could reach Berlin with a 4,000 lb bomb load. They dropped something over 1,400 4,000lb bombs on Berlin in 1945.


As for the weights of bombs used, I think you're missing an important point. It wasn't so much how heavy the bombloads were, but rather the number and types of bombs used. (By the way, the reason they didn't load up more of the small bombs was due to lack of bomb shackles in the bomb bay.) The B-17 could obviously easily truck and dump 5000 pounds of bombs on Berlin. So why didn't they carry 10x500lb bombs on every trip?

Because they figured out that the large GP bombs were not always the most effective means of destroying the target.

I can't find a reference to it at the moment(help, anyone?), but I know I've heard of studies done by the USAAF that determined that large (1000-2000lb) bombs weren't all that great when attacking large, open factories. They simply blew the roofs off, leaving large areas of machinery below still usable. Using smaller bombs, combined with incendiaries, was much more effective.

Incendiaries were certainly effective, but large HE bombs were much better than smaller ones, which lacked the power to damage vital machinery. From the United States Strategic Bombing Survey:


The small bombs generally used against German oil and chemical targets were capable of creating breaks in vital utilities systems, there temporarily shutting off plant production, but only very rarely were small bombs able to destroy vital equipment.

and


It is the unanimous conviction of all Oil Division observers that, under bombing conditions which permit sighting on a specific aiming point and with reasonable bombing accuracy, heavy bombs (2,000 to 4,000 lb., instantaneously fuzed) are several times as effective per ton as the lightweight bombs (500 lb. or less) used principally against German oil targets

Albert Speer said something similar, that smaller bombs damaged factory roofs, larger bombs destroyed the vital machine tools in the factory.


It seems they should have retired the Lanc and just sent more Mosquitos

The great advantage of the Lancaster was its bomb load. It dropped an average of just over 10,000 lbs of bombs per sortie. That made it very cost effective. According to the BBSU, the Lancaster required 9.5 man-months of work for every 1,000 lbs of bombs dropped. The Mosquito required 16.


It all imply's that the Air Marshals and Generals didn't know what they were doing. Obviously they did and won the war with thier knowledge.

If it was an option they thought it out. The B-17\B-24 strategy offered them more than the Mosquito strategy.

There are a lot of reasons they kept on with heavy bombers. Production of Mosquitoes would never have increased enough. They already had plants to make B-17s and Lancasters and other heavy bombers. Mosquitoes required less crew, but proportionately more pilots. It costs a lot more to train a pilot than gunner.

And speculation about what would happen with massed raids of Mosquitoes is just speculation. We can't know how successful or not they would have been.

Trinity_Jay
12-02-2009, 04:18 AM
Some interesting comparisons on the Mossie and B-17. My thoughts would be that Bomber Command never thought of using the Mossie in huge numbers to saturate Berlin, and needed it for its nightfighter/pasthfinder and specialised roles, etc. However, did find these nuggets:

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


The first 4,000 pound bomb dropped by a Mosquito was on 23 February 1944. In February 1944 the Mosquito bomber and pathfinder squadrons in 8 group and their equipment were, 105 (Mos IV, IX), 109 (Mos IV, IX), 139 (Mos IV, IX, XVI, XX), 627 (Mos IV), 692 (Mos IV). The Mark IX and XVI were the types capable of carrying a 4,000 pound bomb.

As of June 1944 the situation was 105 (Mos IV, IX), 109 (Mos IX, XVI), 139 (Mos IV, IX, XVI, XX), 571 (Mos XVI), 692 (Mos XVI).

As of September 1944 the situation was 105 (Mos IV, IX), 109 (Mos IX, XVI), 139 (Mos XVI, XX), 571 (Mos XVI), 608 (Mos XX), 692 (Mos XVI),

As of January 1945 the situation was 105 (Mos IV, IX), 109 (Mos IX, XVI), 128 (Mos XVI), 139 (Mos XVI, XX, XXV), 142 (Mos XXV), 162 (Mos XXV), 571 (Mos XVI), 608 (Mos XX, XXV), 692 (Mos XVI),

As of April 1945 the situation was 105 (Mos IV, IX), 109 (Mos IX, XVI), 128 (Mos XVI), 139 (Mos XVI, XX, XXV), 142 (Mos XXV), 162 (Mos XX, XXV), 163 (Mos XVI, XXV), 571 (Mos XVI), 608 (Mos XVI), 692 (Mos XVI),

You need to add 10 to 20% to the B-17 bomb load figures. You need to understand the Mosquito raids on Berlin were not all by the Mark XVI version capable of carrying a 4,000 pound bomb. Plus the fact even the mark XVIs did not always carry such a load, the Bomber Command War Diaries note the last RAF aircraft to bomb Berlin in
WWII was a Mosquito XVI on 21 April 1945 and it dropped a load of four 500 pound bombs.

The usual conditions apply to the bomb tonnages mentioned below, they are good put not perfect.

Figures for Mosquito raids where the target is given as Berlin by month, fields are month, number of effective sorties, number lost, bomb tonnage in short tons, average bomb load, that is bomb tonnage divided by effective sorties. Richard Davis figures.

Mar-44 / 52 / 0 / 49 / 1895.38
Apr-44 / 54 / 0 / 65 / 2410.07
May-44 / 108 / 0 / 153 / 2824.89
Jun-44 / 212 / 5 / 376 / 3545.96
Jul-44 / 250 / 4 / 415 / 3316.10
Aug-44 / 240 / 1 / 371 / 3088.40
Sep-44 / 194 / 4 / 294 / 3026.31
Oct-44 / 300 / 4 / 400 / 2668.59
Nov-44 / 251 / 1 / 370 / 2948.59
Dec-44 / 165 / 1 / 227 / 2755.88
Jan-45 / 367 / 1 / 490 / 2672.13
Feb-45 / 815 / 3 / 1,070 / 2625.33
Mar-45 / 1,618 / 7 / 2,077 / 2567.83
Apr-45 / 995 / 4 / 1,426 / 2866.97

Totals / 5,621 / 35 / 7,783 / 2769.26

So the Mosquitoes were carrying 4,000 pound bombs to Berlin, but that was clearly a minority of the sorties. If you assume the loads were either 2,000 or 4,000 pounds then around 40% of the sorties carried the heavier load. The above figures are from 125 nights of raids, minimum average bomb load for a given night was 1,629 pounds (on 15 nights the average was below 2,000 pounds, 10 of these nights were in 1945), maximum nightly average bomb load was 3,689 pounds with 11 nights having an average of 3,400 pounds or greater and all bar 1 of these in June and July 1944, the other the following September.

One explanation for the less than 2,000 pounds average bomb load is siren tours, one or two bombs per city times several cities. Also, given the usual size of the Mosquito raids, particularly in 1944, an error of 1 aircraft credited with attacking per night would often be able to shift the average 5 to 10%. The average number of Mosquito sorties per raid on Berlin in the March 1944 to April 1945 period is 45.

Average bomb loads US aircraft attacking Berlin, basically the tonnage of bombs credited as dropping on the target
divided by the aircraft credited with bombing the target, Richard Davis figures. Note that many to most of these raids
had bombers attacking targets other than "Berlin", the usual targets of opportunity or different aiming points, which
explains some of the differences between despatched and attacking figures.

Berlin on 9 March 1944, 361 B-17s despatched, 332 credited with attacking, average bomb load 4,630 pounds.

Berlin on 22 March 1994, 474 B-17s and 214 B-24s despatched 621 bombers credited with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,425 pounds (around 80 bombers attacked other targets, including 32 the Berlin/Basdorf industrial area)

Berlin on 29 April 1944, 446 B-17s and 233 B-24s despatched, 581 bombers credited with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,900 pounds.

Berlin on 7 May 1944, 600 B-17s despatched, 525 credited with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,810 pounds. The B-24s sent to Osnabruck average bomb load 5,435 pounds.

Berlin on 8 May 1944, 500 B-17s despatched, 384 credited with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,765 pounds. The B-24s sent to Brunswick average bomb load 4,790 pounds.

Berlin on 19 May 1944, 588 B-17s despatched, 493 credited with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,325 pounds. The B-24s sent to Brunswick average bomb load 5,710 pounds, or around 1,000 pounds more than 11 days earlier.

Berlin on 24 May 1944, 616 B-17s despatched, 459 credited with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,500 pounds.

Berlin on 21 June 1944, 866 B-17s and 366 B-24s despatched, to many targets, 560 bombers credited with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,900 pounds.

Berlin on 3 February 1945, 1,093 B-17s despatched, 934 credited with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,890 pounds (interestingly the 215 bombers who used H2X to sight their bombs had an average load of around 70 pounds more, which is a warning to treat the figures as a guide, not absolute).

Berlin on 26 February 1945, 840 B-17s and 367 B-24s despatched, to many targets around Berlin, 1,089 bombers credited with attacking 3 targets in Berlin, average bomb load 5,100 pounds. Interestingly the Alexander Platz rail station strike, all B-17, had the highest average of 5,810 pounds, the North rail station strike, all B-24, the lowest at
4,480 pounds. Strike assignments from Freeman, Mighty 8th War Diary. If this is correct presumably this was done to allow the B-24s to fly that little bit higher. This hints at the possibility that, on average, the B-24 carried fewer bombs to Berlin than the B-17 in 1945 anyway.

Berlin on 18 March 1945, 982 B-17s and 347 B-24s despatched, 1,219 bombers credited with attacking. The raid list has 7 entries, for the targets attacked, by between 25 and 498 bombers, bomb load averages from 3,860 to 5,170 pounds, overall average bomb load 5,052 pounds.

Berlin on 28 March 1945, 446 B-17s despatched, 403 credited with attacking, average bomb load 5,155 pounds. By March 1945 many groups were flying with 9 crew, leaving one gunner behind and there was widespread removal of some gun turrets as well. The advantages of air superiority.

Cheers!

CPS_Bulldog

Dance
12-02-2009, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dance:
Just to keep things on an even playing field Jarink, at what altitude and what speed?

Interested in the facts and keeping the comparisons even http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Those missions ranged between 24,000 and 27,000 feet. Speed wasn't mentioned, but I'd guess somewhere between 160-180mph, which was normal cruising speed for deep penetrations like Berlin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for that Jarink.



Here are some performance figures for comparison..

Mosquito B Mk XVI

Maximum speed: 415 mph at 28,000 ft
Cruise Speed: 250 mph
Range: 1,500 miles with 4,000lb bomb load
Service ceiling: 37,000 ft

B-17G

Maximum speed: 287 mph at 25,000 ft
Cruise speed: 182 mph
Range: 2,000 miles with 6,000lb bomb load
Service ceiling: 35,600 ft

From Jane's, WW2 Warbirds and The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft.

Unfortunately only the ranges are adjusted for bomb load, still looking for definitive speed and ceiling adjustments for bomb load, if any.

Xiolablu3
12-02-2009, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
It all imply's that the Air Marshals and Generals didn't know what they were doing. Obviously they did and won the war with thier knowledge.

If it was an option they thought it out. The B-17\B-24 strategy offered them more than the Mosquito strategy.

Well the USAAF didnt have any Mosquitos so they didnt have a choice.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
12-02-2009, 05:47 AM
http://www.100thbg.com/mainmenus/351st/images26/f13f_600.jpg

http://www.airrecce.co.uk/graphics/AC/Mosquito/F-8-USAAF-650.jpg

yuuppers
12-02-2009, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Well the USAAF didnt have any Mosquitos so they didnt have a choice.

Ah, but the USAAF did have Mossies.

"General Henry "Hap" Arnold, commander of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF), witnessed a demonstration of the Mosquito on 20 April 1941 as a guest of Lord Beaverbrook. Geoffrey de Havilland JR was in prime form that day, screaming the machine low over the ground and performing sharp maneuvers with one engine feathered. Arnold was extremely impressed, and returned to the US with engineering drawings of the machine.

There matters more or less stood with the Yanks until late 1942, when a B.IV Mosquito was given to Colonel Elliot Roosevelt, the American President's son and commander of a USAAF reconnaissance squadron in North Africa, equipped with Lockheed F-4 Lightning reconnaissance aircraft. The B.IV was faster and had much longer range than the Lockheeds, and Elliot Roosevelt began to press for adopting the British machine. "

for the rest see, http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmoss2.html#m8

Daiichidoku
12-02-2009, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Mosquitoes required less crew, but proportionately more pilots. It costs a lot more to train a pilot than gunner.

proportionately more pilots? please explain

Mossie: 1 pilot + 1 nav
B-17: 2 pilots + 1 nav

Kettenhunde
12-02-2009, 08:13 AM
Berlin on 22 March 1994, 474 B-17s and 214 B-24s despatched 621 bombers credited with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,425 pounds (around 80 bombers attacked other targets, including 32 the Berlin/Basdorf industrial area)

I bet the Germans were ****ed and lodged a complaint with the UN.

HellToupee
12-02-2009, 08:14 AM
Mossie would be better, but it was't possible, they just couldn't build them fast enough. They should have also developed a metal mossie and used all the resources that went into the heavies other than the Lancaster.

Flak survivability in a mossie is also better, they would not be required to fly in large slow formations AAA can concentrate on the speed means less time over the flak.

Bremspropeller
12-02-2009, 08:50 AM
But, for it's intended purpose of regaining air superiority over Germany, it was a complete failure.

Certainly the plane was at fault http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

virgule88
12-02-2009, 08:57 AM
The OP bias is strong... but I agree. Huge Boeing streams sure sounds great but they are not the smartest move the Allied made. A ~30 tons machine to carry ~8 tons of bombs requiring 11 mens and thousands of gallons of fuel just doesn't sounds right to me.

BigC208
12-02-2009, 09:20 AM
Say a B17 takes 8000lbs of bombs and a Mossie 4000lbs of bombs. B17 uses twice as much fuel, double the pilots plus 6 more crewmembers. America could have built twice the number of metal Mossies. Crew them with the same amount of pilots. You would need more navigators but you can train those a lot faster than pilots. Now the Germans have twice as many targets to intercept that are flying twice as fast and at low altitudes. Low flying Mossies, alone or in small numbers are harder to shoot down than large formations of slow flying heavy bombers. Germany's defenses would've been swamped a lot sooner. As a real life pilot I feel I would have a bigger chance at survival and hitting industrial targets with a Mossie at low altitude during the day than being part of a box of heavy bombers. Forget about doing it twice a day as some people here are suggesting. That would only work with fresh crews. Flying 4-6 hours at treetop level will wear you out quickly. Now if your're just trying to destroy city blocks by the square foot a heavy bomber with a lot of smaller bombs will do the job. While the Mossies are doing the bombing you can also send all those P47's and 51's ahead to mess with the fighters and known flak concentrations. So IMHO a Mossie would have been a more economical way of doing the USAAF's job in Europe.

stalkervision
12-02-2009, 09:27 AM
Now this is an example of a excellent topic for a long thread. just Brilliant! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Of course all you guys have given me a huge wonderful resource of excellent topics to work with. I thank you! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Dance
12-02-2009, 09:42 AM
Such a good atmosphere for a contentious topic too Stalkervision, makes a refreshing change. Not too much bias (except perhaps in the voting), a desire for knowledge in a great what-if scenario http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
12-02-2009, 09:53 AM
Ok the USAAF had a few recon aircraft, but very few IIRC.

Trinity_Jay
12-02-2009, 10:03 AM
Not only is it arguable that the Mosquito could have flattened Berlin ala the B-17 but with more safety with speed, manoeuvrability and ease of crew in its favour, it was also one of the most versatile wartime aircraft. Also, the Mosquito was the highest scoring Allied night fighter of WW2 with over 600 kills credited to it with the Luftwaffe often giving their pilots ‘two’ kills for each Mossie downed. It was THAT good.

Goering was begrudgingly impressed with it and the Luftwaffe ultimately ripped it off – it was a failure.

However, I believe that the reasons why the Mosquito was never used for such conventional attacks was their limited numbers, the war program was heavily engaged in the production and research of heavies such as B-17, B-24, Lancaster, Halifax and Stirlings – with the method of box protection that was fought to be ideal in slow but mutual .50/.303 protection – as well as the possible theory that Bomber Command never realised its ultimate potential in a destroyer of cities. But as a hypothetical setting, it would be very interesting to contemplate as fast and nimble Mosquitoes overwhelm the air space of the Third Reich that was never capable of tackling such a determined and hard to kill force.

R_Target
12-02-2009, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
The great advantage of the Lancaster was its bomb load. It dropped an average of just over 10,000 lbs of bombs per sortie. That made it very cost effective. According to the BBSU, the Lancaster required 9.5 man-months of work for every 1,000 lbs of bombs dropped. The Mosquito required 16.

Are these maintenance hours? How many crewmen would be freed up for re-training if they Mosquitoes had replaced Lancasters?

hop2002
12-02-2009, 11:12 AM
It's total hours for building the plane, the equipment, training the aircrew etc.

BillSwagger
12-02-2009, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by BigC208:
So IMHO a Mossie would have been a more economical way of doing the USAAF's job in Europe.

It really is an apples and oranges comparison because each was used a bit differently and by different air forces. On the face of it, it seems as though the Mossie was more efficient, but i have to wonder what its success rate would've been like in similar day time attacks that the B-17s did.

My opinion is that the Mossie made a better night bomber because flak was less of a hazard to the smaller plane. Put the two birds side by side, and I think it becomes more obvious. I don't think for a minute that the Mossie was so much faster that it could also out fly flak. Its lighter construction and fewer engines would've made it more vulnerable to AA weapons. This is my reasoning that it was the more favored plane for night time raids to Berlin.


http://bp0.blogger.com/_CbwnjooteyI/SGEYL8DGnTI/AAAAAAAARQg/ANBSH0o4QC0/s400/105.gif

http://bp0.blogger.com/_CbwnjooteyI/SGEYMF_5LWI/AAAAAAAARQw/F6MHRUxYLHA/s400/107.gif

http://bp0.blogger.com/_CbwnjooteyI/SGE1qRGoVII/AAAAAAAARVI/F410QJq4pOk/s400/115.jpg


http://bp1.blogger.com/_CbwnjooteyI/SGHKW55XO1I/AAAAAAAARXA/u3H6M2rF-uA/s400/129.gif



Bill

K_Freddie
12-02-2009, 12:42 PM
Flak avoidance tactics would have been implemented for the mossie, like flying in small groups of squadron strength (12 or so) that could easily be controlled by the squad OC.

Pockets of squad strength mossies could be dispersed over a wide area homing in on the Big City, using their speed as mentioned.

This tactic would force air defences to be split, thus weakening them and creating gaps. It'd take some imaginative thinking to plug all the holes.

Now take a lot of B17s with no speed advantage, so they're forced to group together in large numbers for defence - Say no more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

On the other hand, if mossies had been used as bombers-en-masse, this might have sped up the ME262 introduction.. but a lot of IF's

BigC208
12-02-2009, 01:01 PM
@Billswagger

I agree with you 100%. Only I would never use B17/24 box tactics with a Mossie. No defensive weapons and even though faster than a B17 an easy target for radar guided flak. During the day German fighters would've slaughtered them. It would be like asking Muhamed Ali to fight in mixed martial arts combat. He would not stand a chance. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Even the USAAF had to change their tactics after the Sweinfurt debacle where they consistently lost 20% of their forces. At that rate it would've taken a few more raids and the USAAF would've been out of business in Europe. I personally equate their 1943 tactics to a charge on horseback against a line of tanks or fortified machinegun nests. Swarms of Mossies flying low level and swamping defenses would've been very hard to stop.

Gibbage1
12-02-2009, 01:20 PM
In the apex of the US bombing campaign, there were formations of 300-1000 B-17 and B-24 bombers asigned to 1 target or city. Sure, smaller formations of 12 bombers being able to do avoidance would keep them out of harms way, but how do you orginize 50+ squads of 12 fighters into 1 target without having some huge piles of wood and lumber falling on the target? 1 formation at a time? Then you give the enemy ample warning and time to set up an ambush.

In reality, this is like compairing a B-52 to an A-10 in modern combat. Yes, an A-10 can carry a LOT of bombs, but its roal is vastly differant. You cant replace one with the other and visa-versa.

BillSwagger
12-02-2009, 01:23 PM
Flak avoidance tactics could be implemented, but do you think there were areas where no flak was? Do you also think that B-17s would try to fly around flak beds if they knew where they were? How many options do you think pilots have when flying longer range missions?
I really don't see the size of the formation being relevant to dodging flak. B-17s held tight boxes for a number of reasons, one of them being air to air defense, but also so the bombs remained concentrated over the target area. Heading to Berlin, you were going to encounter flak or AA weapons, this was a fact of the war and why 'heavy' bombers were developed.

Part of me has to wonder if the Mossie was so much more efficient, than why would the USAAF waste precious resources and manpower on big heavies. The truth is, they needed the heavy bombers for day time raids.

The Mossie was used in a similar way as a night bomber, and for good reason. Its simply because flak barrages were no longer a threat from the ground. A lighter, two engined, bomber had much better chances.

I would like to see how many day time raids the Mossie did on Berlin, and their survival rates. I guarantee the deployment is no where near their night time uses on such bombing runs to the Berlin.


http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww99/billswagger/flak.jpg
"quick men, deploy flak avoidance tactics....."


Bill

Xiolablu3
12-02-2009, 01:31 PM
The point is that the later USAAF raids were designed to bring up the Luftwaffe and force them to fight.

This could not have been done easily with swarms of Mosquitos.

ALso I repeat that the USAAF had 1000's of B17's and B24's and hardly any Mosquito's, so it wasnt an option.

It WAS an option for the RAF, but the Mossie had to compete with a 10,000 bomb load when compared to the Lancaster.

A better question for the USAAF would be 'B17 vs P38 loaded with bombs'. I seem to remember that the late P38's could carry 4000lbs of bombs too? However I guess the lack of a 2nd crew member in the P38 made that option unworkable? Just a guess.

Xiolablu3
12-02-2009, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I would like to see how many day time raids the Mossie did on Berlin, and their survival rates. I guarantee the deployment is no where near their night time uses on such bombing runs to the Berlin.


Bill


I dont know about Berlin, but throughout the war the Mossie did all sorts of raids, Daylight and Night time. They mounted the first ever daylight raid on Berlin on the 19th Sept 1942.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Jericho


30/1/43 - Mosquito daylight attack on Berlin - to disrupt the Nazi Party’s tenth anniversary celebrations. A target too juicy to resist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QndLmfp6Y5w


Some info :-

http://www.rafbombercommand.co..._until_may_1943.html (http://www.rafbombercommand.com/timeline/1942_july_until_may_1943.html)

http://www.worldwar-2.net/time...r-war-index-1943.htm (http://www.worldwar-2.net/timelines/war-in-europe/european-air-war/european-air-war-index-1943.htm)

Gibbage1
12-02-2009, 01:56 PM
They did use a P-38 as a level bomber. You had a single "droop snoot" glass nosed P-38 or pathfinder with a formation of standard fighter's loaded with bombs. The droop snoot had a norden and a 2nd crewman in the nose, and all released on his command.

It worked, with limited success. It could of been the situation they were placed. Ploesti. The B-24's were having problems, so they tried the P-38's. They got jumped by 109's and MC202's on the way in.

Also, the P-38's range relied a lot on external fuel tanks. So for long range missions, they had to use 1 drop tank, and 1 bomb. Cutting the max bomb load to 1600lb for long range missions.

So, it had its drawbacks. But once the bombs were away, they were fully capable fighters.

M_Gunz
12-02-2009, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by BigC208:
Say a B17 takes 8000lbs of bombs and a Mossie 4000lbs of bombs. B17 uses twice as much fuel, double the pilots plus 6 more crewmembers. America could have built twice the number of metal Mossies. Crew them with the same amount of pilots. You would need more navigators but you can train those a lot faster than pilots.

#2 seat needs to be a pilot also in case the pilot-commander becomes incapacitated.
Metal Mossie --- B-26 perhaps?

JtD
12-02-2009, 02:03 PM
How would Mosquitos deliver 2000000 lbs of bombs in a single daylight attack?

yuuppers
12-02-2009, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
In the apex of the US bombing campaign, there were formations of 300-1000 B-17 and B-24 bombers asigned to 1 target or city. Sure, smaller formations of 12 bombers being able to do avoidance would keep them out of harms way, but how do you orginize 50+ squads of 12 fighters into 1 target without having some huge piles of wood and lumber falling on the target? 1 formation at a time? Then you give the enemy ample warning and time to set up an ambush.

In reality, this is like compairing a B-52 to an A-10 in modern combat. Yes, an A-10 can carry a LOT of bombs, but its roal is vastly differant. You cant replace one with the other and visa-versa.

RAF BC didn't fly in formation at night but flew as individual a/c and they managed to put large numbers of a/c at one time over the target. That is 500 to 1000 a/c in a raid. Collisions were rare.

One point I have not seen mentioned is if the Americans could have produced the Mossie then the heavies could have increased the number long range sub hunters. Poor U-boats.

M_Gunz
12-02-2009, 02:08 PM
1 B-17 with a mixed load of bombs vs 1 Mossie with 1 4,000 lb bomb...
1000 B-17's in a coordinated strike vs how many Mossies trying to sneak in like a few can actually do?

Luftwaffe responded more to the big strikes than to chasing the small ones. Apples and oranges do not
plug and play to each others' roles. It doesn't work that way.

Daiichidoku
12-02-2009, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
#2 seat needs to be a pilot also in case the pilot-commander becomes incapacitated.
Metal Mossie --- B-26 perhaps?

then why would they fly A-20s, Dauntlesses, Avengers, and ALL British heavies without co-pilots?

Dance
12-02-2009, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
How would Mosquitos deliver 2000000 lbs of bombs in a single daylight attack?

If we had 500 available mossies of the correct type able to carry a cookie, then 500 planes, instead of the 333 B-17's carrying their regular sub-6000 lb load.

1000 crew at risk instead of over 3,000, a faster attack and no need to fly in formation, and a damn sight faster getting home.

Just an observation on this what-if scenario.

Daiichidoku
12-02-2009, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Part of me has to wonder if the Mossie was so much more efficient, than why would the USAAF waste precious resources and manpower on big heavies.

you would have to ask circa 1940-45 Boeing shareholders

yuuppers
12-02-2009, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
1 B-17 with a mixed load of bombs vs 1 Mossie with 1 4,000 lb bomb...
1000 B-17's in a coordinated strike vs how many Mossies trying to sneak in like a few can actually do?

Luftwaffe responded more to the big strikes than to chasing the small ones. Apples and oranges do not
plug and play to each others' roles. It doesn't work that way.

Are you saying that the Lw would have allowed say a 1000 or more Mossies to fly in German air space without interception?

Xiolablu3
12-02-2009, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
#2 seat needs to be a pilot also in case the pilot-commander becomes incapacitated.
Metal Mossie --- B-26 perhaps?

then why would they fly A-20s, Dauntlesses, Avengers, and ALL British heavies without co-pilots? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe I have misunderstood you, but all British heavies had copilots.

Watch the dambusters, the copilot sits beside the captain/pilot :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCRIsjJFRNo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygsrs_m3WY0

Daiichidoku
12-02-2009, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
1 B-17 with a mixed load of bombs vs 1 Mossie with 1 4,000 lb bomb...
1000 B-17's in a coordinated strike vs how many Mossies trying to sneak in like a few can actually do?

Luftwaffe responded more to the big strikes than to chasing the small ones. Apples and oranges do not
plug and play to each others' roles. It doesn't work that way.


raids were routed as best could be around flak hotspots, as per whatever "Gen" could be produced about them

sometimes groups broke off from main formations to feint the main attacks, sometimes separate formations were made simultaneously, sometimes both

there was a LOT of airspace to cover, it was not the easiest task to defend German airspace aerially from heavies in daytime, let alone faster, higher flying Mossies coming in from 100s of routes

now, if you had that many MORE Mossies doing the same......for the LW, thats "advil" pain alright

Dance
12-02-2009, 02:24 PM
They wouldn't have to fly in defensive combat boxes, could attack in any numbers in multiple directions Yuppers, overwhelming for any defensive force to attack in any coordinated way I would have thought.

(still on the what-if strategy)

Daiichidoku
12-02-2009, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Maybe I have misunderstood you, but all British heavies had copilots.


some had dual controls, but not all

no co-pilts sir, flight engineers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

yuuppers
12-02-2009, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Maybe I have misunderstood you, but all British heavies had copilots.

Watch the dambusters, the copilot sits beside the captain/pilot :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCRIsjJFRNo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygsrs_m3WY0

No they didn't, that is the flight engineer.

http://s110605900.websitehome.co.uk/lanc/main.htm

Lancaster,
Crew: 7: pilot, flight engineer, navigator, bomb aimer, wireless operator, mid-upper and rear gunners

Halifax,
Crew: 7

Sterling,
Crew: 7

Xiolablu3
12-02-2009, 02:43 PM
Isnt that basically the same thing?

Daiichidoku
12-02-2009, 02:44 PM
in short, no

in long, noooooooooooooooooooooooo

Bremspropeller
12-02-2009, 02:44 PM
No.

jarink
12-02-2009, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Metal Mossie --- B-26 perhaps?

This would be a much better "Apples to Apples" comparison. Not only were they both powerful, fast, twin engine light bombers, but they are much closer to each other in terms of when they were developed. They were also extremely close in performance and weapon loads.

Mossie 1st flight - November 1940
Mossie bomber 1st flight - Sep 1941
A-26 first flight - July 1942
B-17 first flight - July 1935

Six years difference may not seem like much, but there was a ton of changes in aircraft design and performance made between 1935 (most countries still used biplane fighters) and 1940 (planes like the Spitfire and A6M entering service) Kind of like comparing prop-driven planes designed in 1940 with jets from 1945.

yuuppers
12-02-2009, 03:05 PM
Lancaster cockpit photo from the engineer's position

http://www.avro-lancaster.com/...lancastercockpit.jpg (http://www.avro-lancaster.com/images/lancastercockpit.jpg)

Note no control flight controls on the right side.

M_Gunz
12-02-2009, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
1 B-17 with a mixed load of bombs vs 1 Mossie with 1 4,000 lb bomb...
1000 B-17's in a coordinated strike vs how many Mossies trying to sneak in like a few can actually do?

Luftwaffe responded more to the big strikes than to chasing the small ones. Apples and oranges do not
plug and play to each others' roles. It doesn't work that way.

Are you saying that the Lw would have allowed say a 1000 or more Mossies to fly in German air space without interception? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty much the opposite if they were flown to strike as the heavies were. This is all to hit one target.
Coordinating 80 groups of 12 would have been chaos without even considering staged escorts. Or 250 x 4-planes.
I won't bother with all the problems and just save a lot of typing.

From all I've read about Mossie attacks they did not operate in huge groups. What could be the reasoning?
Perhaps because whoever ran things did not think it would work or just due to limited numbers of Mossies
being made or perhaps that plane fit well with what small, fast groups could do and not large operations?
Or maybe when it's just a few they have time to fly straight and level long enough for the hit but by the
time the 20th lined up that things would be a little different?

It's not like there were no losses in Mossie ops as they were but I can only guess big ops would have been a
bad idea with that plane.

Daiichidoku
12-02-2009, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by jarink:
They were also extremely close in performance


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

max speed 287mph @ 5000ft, service ceiling 21,000ft?

M_Gunz
12-02-2009, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
#2 seat needs to be a pilot also in case the pilot-commander becomes incapacitated.
Metal Mossie --- B-26 perhaps?

then why would they fly A-20s, Dauntlesses, Avengers, and ALL British heavies without co-pilots? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't know that A-20s, Dauntlesses, and Avengers had a #2 seat!
I guess the British made a decision. USAAF did things differently.

Daiichidoku
12-02-2009, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
Lancaster cockpit photo from the engineer's position

http://www.avro-lancaster.com/...lancastercockpit.jpg (http://www.avro-lancaster.com/images/lancastercockpit.jpg)

Note no control flight controls on the right side.

that pic was from the first production Lanc

the BBMF Lanc has dual control yokes; i have no idea however, how many or under what circumstances Lancs had dual controls

a quick image check online shows some Brit heavies of the same type had dual control yokes, and some not, i imagine most in wartime, in BC, did not howver

Daiichidoku
12-02-2009, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I didn't know that A-20s, Dauntlesses, and Avengers had a #2 seat!

the point was, they went ahead without consideration for having a co-pilot, so why would that be so important in the case you cited?



Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I guess the British made a decision. USAAF did things differently.

then explain the A/B26 Invader please

yuuppers
12-02-2009, 03:31 PM
So does the Canadian Lanc have duel controls, but this is for safety reasons.

R5858 from the 1st production batch (on display in England) delivered in June 1942

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_04/lancasterMOS1805_800x529.jpg

War time photos of dual control Lancs could be training a/c.

Dance
12-02-2009, 03:37 PM
Dual control Brit Lancs are a rarity.

M_Gunz
12-02-2009, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I guess the British made a decision. USAAF did things differently.

then explain the A/B26 Invader please </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Explain the B-17 and B-29 and....

PS-- it might be something to do with size or mission perhaps?

Daiichidoku
12-02-2009, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I guess the British made a decision. USAAF did things differently.

then explain the A/B26 Invader please </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Explain the B-17 and B-29 and....

PS-- it might be something to do with size or mission perhaps? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>





Originally posted by BigC208:
Say a B17 takes 8000lbs of bombs and a Mossie 4000lbs of bombs. B17 uses twice as much fuel, double the pilots plus 6 more crewmembers. America could have built twice the number of metal Mossies. Crew them with the same amount of pilots. You would need more navigators but you can train those a lot faster than pilots.


#2 seat needs to be a pilot also in case the pilot-commander becomes incapacitated.
Metal Mossie --- B-26 perhaps?

Gunz, BigC says for twice the Mossies, you need only the same # of pilots you use for B17s, your response is that you need two pilots, not one, is case one is taken out, implying that BigC's "pilot savings" is invalid


then,

Originally posted by Daii:
then why would they fly A-20s, Dauntlesses, Avengers, and ALL British heavies without co-pilots?
I point out that having two pilots is not neccesary, or at least not important enough, given the example of how many bomber types do not bother with co-pilots



then

Originally post by Gunz:
I didn't know that A-20s, Dauntlesses, and Avengers had a #2 seat!
I guess the British made a decision. USAAF did things differently.
YOU said that the Brits do it different than USA


then

Originally posted by Daii:
then explain the A/B26 Invader please
I asked you explain the A/B26 Invader [as it shows that USA does NOT do things differently]


so, Gunz, instead of being a TROLL, and trying to change the subject, YOU explain the A/B 26 as i asked you first

while youre at it, explain how size and mission comes into it (aside from the B29, whose range/endurance requires a 2nd pilot)

Gibbage1
12-02-2009, 04:27 PM
I still dont see how you can manage a swarm of 500 mossy's over a single target out of formation. Airports have a hard time with less numbers using todays tech and radio's.

M_Gunz
12-02-2009, 04:29 PM
Okay, you save on pilots using light bombers going to Berlin and back. Question arises why they didn't send
1000 light bomber raids to Berlin since by the logic given it would have saved more men and been easier.
Gee, they could have sent TWICE the number of light bombers to drop the more tonnage! OMG what a bunch of
uninformed MORONS both British Bomber Command and the USAAF commander staff were! They shoulda been hung!

Are you happy now?

PS -- Gee you bunch of experts could have saved so many lives!

Dance
12-02-2009, 04:41 PM
It's a shame this thread is going the way of so many before it.

Don't care who started it (not the thread, the shenanigans), it was good for a while.

At Gibbage, they didn't have to land and take off, all down to planning and execution, just another what-if.

Daiichidoku
12-02-2009, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Okay, you save on pilots using light bombers going to Berlin and back. Question arises why they didn't send
1000 light bomber raids to Berlin since by the logic given it would have saved more men and been easier.
Gee, they could have sent TWICE the number of light bombers to drop the more tonnage!

yea, thats kinda whats being discussed in this thread, among other things



Originally posted by M_Gunz:
OMG what a bunch of uninformed MORONS both British Bomber Command and the USAAF commander staff were!

in some ways, yes, but they also had to work with and under some directives and with equipment and resources handed to them by cilvilian government bodies that would and could be short-sighted and/or negligent, or simply out of thier depth

had the British Air Ministry been a little sharper, RAF would have had more Mosquitos sooner, along with earlier development to better models, including the awesome dh 108 Hornet

all nations had this problem, not the least of them Germany's RLM



Originally posted by Gunz:
Are you happy now?

PS -- Gee you bunch of experts could have saved so many lives!

take a pill

Daiichidoku
12-02-2009, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Dance:
all down to planning and execution

for the intruder missions, the Mossie crews did all thier own planning, the when, where and how

level bombing missions were likely the same, provided the target was hit within a certain time frame

Gibbage1
12-02-2009, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Dance:
At Gibbage, they didn't have to land and take off, all down to planning and execution, just another what-if.

Im not talking about taking off and landing. Im talking about 500 fighters over the target area, were there is no radar to help them orginize. From what people are saying, they would of broken up into groups of 10-12, took differant paths to avoid flak concentration, and merged onto the target. That means you have 50+ formations of bombers merging onto the target all at the same time, from differant directions, altitude, and all without the help of radar to assist.

If they went in one group at a time, the Luftwaffe would have a field day picking them off.

Dance
12-02-2009, 05:59 PM
Who said anything about all at the same time? The fact that some have suggested 12 or so at a time is not indicative of what might have taken place at the planning stage Gibbage. I'm purely surmising, but waves of 100 (say 4X25) at a time spread at different altitudes and coming from different directions (x 5) would be more effective. There would have been little chance of the Luftwaffe intercepting as many as a sky full of 4 engine types all sticking together. (No odds to me if they're B-17's or Lancs)

Don't forget this is all purely what-if.

Zeus-cat
12-02-2009, 06:02 PM
I think people are overlooking several important factors.

1) It is difficult to perform mass low-level bombing attacks. Try this in IL-2 with just 10 or 12 ground attack aircraft. If you aren't coordinating with each other you can overfly someone's explosion and get destroyed or heavily damaged. And keep in mind that IL-2 has no secondary explosions, minimal smoke effects and a lot of other things that make low level attacks a lot easier than they really would be. After the first few planes the target would be obscurred by smoke from the initial explosions. When you do a high-altitude mass attack everyone drops about the same time and blankets the area.

2) You shouldn't discount the pschyological effect on the enemy of seeing wave after wave of large bombers flying over their country day after day and yet never seeing your country do the same thing. I know the morae of the British people went up during the Blitz but the strategic bombing of Germany was a longer campaign and targeted a lot more of the country. That had to have a negative effect on the morale of the soldiers who would see these mass attacks. You wouldn't get this with low-level attacks.

Were there any large scale low-level attacks against targets that were normally attacked by B-17s and B-24s? If not, then we really have no way to compare the effectiveness or what kind of advantages/disadvantages such an attack would have over the types of attacks that were actually carried out by high-flying bombers.

Dance
12-02-2009, 06:10 PM
Again, who said low-level attacks? It has already been demonstrated that the Mossie could bomb from 30,000 feet and did operationally. Low-level attacks were just part of the repertoire.

BillSwagger
12-02-2009, 06:11 PM
Before i carry on about how much more resistant to flak heavies were, i did a bit more reading on the mossie and there are a few things that might make it a bit clearer on why the Mossie couldn't replace the roll of a heavy bomber.

For one, the bomber version was not the same as the photo recon version, so its max speeds were around 360-370mph.
Also the max range was 1500 miles with a full weapons load. Max ranges are normally calculated at 10,000ft. on eco cruise.

I'm pretty certain that the Mossie would've had some issues carrying the same bomb tonage at the same altitudes as B-17s to Berlin. Not that it couldn't, just that in order to save fuel it was probably looking at flying much slower where any surprise attack would be nullified. It might be able to at lower altitudes which actual coincides with much of the literature i've read. To help avoid flak they would need to fly higher, where range and fuel would've been a concern, so in essence they were probably looking at flying on eco cruise at 20-30kft, which doesn't give the Mossie that much of a speed advantage.

In other words, i don't think they were that safe from interception, or flak if they were to be used in a similar manner as a heavy bomber.
Its a myth to think they could fly to Berlin at sufficient speeds, carrying that kind of bomb tonage, and at a safe height where they wouldn't be blasted by AA guns.
It seems apparent to me why they were used on night raids where they could fly in lower with out the worry of flak, and get more range and speed out of their fuel.



Bill

Dance
12-02-2009, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Before i carry on about how much more resistant to flak heavies were, i did a bit more reading on the mossie and there are a few things that might make it a bit clearer on why the Mossie couldn't replace the roll of a heavy bomber.

For one, the bomber version was not the same as the photo recon version, so its max speeds were around 360-370mph.
Also the max range was 1500 miles with a full weapons load. Max ranges are normally calculated at 10,000ft. on eco cruise.

I'm pretty certain that the Mossie would've had some issues carrying the same bomb tonage at the same altitudes as B-17s to Berlin. It might be able to at lower altitudes which actual coincides with much of the literature i've read. To help avoid flak they would need to fly higher, where range and fuel would've been a concern, so in essence they were probably looking at flying on eco cruise at 20-30kft, which doesn't give the Mossie that much of a speed advantage.



Bill

I'll re-quote myself for ease...

"Here are some performance figures for comparison..

Mosquito B Mk XVI Edit: (a bomber btw)

Maximum speed: 415 mph at 28,000 ft
Cruise Speed: 250 mph
Range: 1,500 miles with 4,000lb bomb load
Service ceiling: 37,000 ft

B-17G

Maximum speed: 287 mph at 25,000 ft
Cruise speed: 182 mph
Range: 2,000 miles with 6,000lb bomb load
Service ceiling: 35,600 ft

From Jane's, WW2 Warbirds and The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft."

BillSwagger
12-02-2009, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Dance:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Before i carry on about how much more resistant to flak heavies were, i did a bit more reading on the mossie and there are a few things that might make it a bit clearer on why the Mossie couldn't replace the roll of a heavy bomber.

For one, the bomber version was not the same as the photo recon version, so its max speeds were around 360-370mph.
Also the max range was 1500 miles with a full weapons load. Max ranges are normally calculated at 10,000ft. on eco cruise.

I'm pretty certain that the Mossie would've had some issues carrying the same bomb tonage at the same altitudes as B-17s to Berlin. It might be able to at lower altitudes which actual coincides with much of the literature i've read. To help avoid flak they would need to fly higher, where range and fuel would've been a concern, so in essence they were probably looking at flying on eco cruise at 20-30kft, which doesn't give the Mossie that much of a speed advantage.



Bill

I'll re-quote myself for ease...

"Here are some performance figures for comparison..

Mosquito B Mk XVI Edit: (a bomber btw)

Maximum speed: 415 mph at 28,000 ft
Cruise Speed: 250 mph
Range: 1,500 miles with 4,000lb bomb load
Service ceiling: 37,000 ft

B-17G

Maximum speed: 287 mph at 25,000 ft
Cruise speed: 182 mph
Range: 2,000 miles with 6,000lb bomb load
Service ceiling: 35,600 ft

From Jane's, WW2 Warbirds and The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh goodie, more numbers.

I guess what i'm saying, Dance, is that in order for a Mosquito to bomb from 20-30ft, and make it to Berlin and back, its not going to be able to rely on its speed. It would be just as vulnerable to interception, and possibly more vulnerable to flak because it doesn't have the armor or extra engines that a heavy does.

It also looks like I could go further (aka higher) with more bombs using a B-17. Range translates to height depending how you interpret it.
So i just don't see the Mossie being used the same way as a heavy bomber, just as you probably wouldn't use a heavy bomber the way you might use a Mossie.
Their rolls are interdependent, however. One could deliver large quantities of bombs. The other could do it faster and lower, but probably only in very specific locations or at times when AAA defenses were not an issue for it, such as at night.

Bill

ImpStarDuece
12-02-2009, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Dance:

I'll re-quote myself for ease...

"Here are some performance figures for comparison..

Mosquito B Mk XVI Edit: (a bomber btw)

Maximum speed: 415 mph at 28,000 ft
Cruise Speed: 250 mph
Range: 1,500 miles with 4,000lb bomb load
Service ceiling: 37,000 ft

B-17G

Maximum speed: 287 mph at 25,000 ft
Cruise speed: 182 mph
Range: 2,000 miles with 6,000lb bomb load
Service ceiling: 35,600 ft

From Jane's, WW2 Warbirds and The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft."

The later two speed, two stage Merlin powered Mosquito (Mk IX, XVI) bombers cruised much faster than 250 mph.

Typically they operated at 315-325 TAS at 20,000 feet over Europe in minimum cruise. Max cruise (+7 lbs, 1 hour sustained) was around 365-375 mph.

Even the early single stage, two speed Merlin powered Mosquitos cruised at 270-280 mph. Max cruise (+4 lbs, 1 hour sustained) was 315-330 mph, depending on weight and external tankage.

ImMoreBetter
12-02-2009, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by Dance:
Who said anything about all at the same time? The fact that some have suggested 12 or so at a time is not indicative of what might have taken place at the planning stage Gibbage. I'm purely surmising, but waves of 100 (say 4X25) at a time spread at different altitudes and coming from different directions (x 5) would be more effective. There would have been little chance of the Luftwaffe intercepting as many as a sky full of 4 engine types all sticking together. (No odds to me if they're B-17's or Lancs)

Don't forget this is all purely what-if.

I'd ague that the outcome would be the same. When the Germans attacked the American bombing raids, they didn't attack all 1000 bombers at once. That kind of formation is miles long, they couldn't possibly attack them all at once. They often focused on individual bomb groups (~40 bombers).

So the German interceptors pick out 40 planes from a formation of a thousand. How is that any different from picking out 40 planes from a wave of 100? The same number of aircraft are targeted.

Dance
12-02-2009, 07:15 PM
ImpStarDuece, I'll give you that one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I take note of your argument ImMoreBetter, but would counter with 1000's of bombers all coming from more or less the same direction at more or less the same altitude, at a relatively low cruise is like a conveyor belt to the mincer.

I suggested earlier perhaps 5 waves of 100 planes each split in to groups of 25 coming from all directions at high speed, might be a bit harder to counter. I don't believe this kind of attack would have been impossible to organise, even if it's not what occurred at the time. All bombing strategies evolved during the war, both for the UK and US.

My case is not to prove that the Mossie was the best, just in the OP's scenario, could it have worked as a strategy, at the moment I have heard nothing to say that it couldn't have, but that's not how it went down at the time.

BillSwagger
12-02-2009, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by Dance:
ImpStarDuece, I'll give you that one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I take note of your argument ImMoreBetter, but would counter with 1000's of bombers all coming from more or less the same direction at more or less the same altitude, at a relatively low cruise is like a conveyor belt to the mincer.

I suggested earlier perhaps 5 waves of 100 planes each split in to groups of 25 coming from all directions at high speed, might be a bit harder to counter. I don't believe this kind of attack would have been impossible to organise, even if it's not what occurred at the time. All bombing strategies evolved during the war, both for the UK and US.

My case is not to prove that the Mossie was the best, just in the OP's scenario, could it have worked as a strategy, at the moment I have heard nothing to say that it couldn't have, but that's not how it went down at the time.


I understand the strategy, but i don't think the Mossie had the capacity to run how people are describing it.
Minimum cruise with a full bomb load at 20,000ft hardly counts as high speed, and climbing to such a height with a full bomb load takes a significant cut out of the range. You'd still be running your Mossies slower than what might be deemed more favorable at lower altitudes or with less bomb tonnage.

Flying lower in daylight hours on longer missions would be much riskier.


Whats interesting is that the plane was used on 'nuisance' missions to keep pressure on German defenses in between the heavy bombing runs.

jarink
12-02-2009, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:
They were also extremely close in performance


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

max speed 287mph @ 5000ft, service ceiling 21,000ft? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not the A-20, the A-26.

Max speed 355 mph.

The service ceiling is really the only place where the A-26 lags behind the Mossie. Of course, it was trucking an additional crew member and turrets.


Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:I guess the British made a decision. USAAF did things differently.

then explain the A/B26 Invader please </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, maybe because the USAAF used the A-26 as a light bomber (battlefield support missions) and not a strategic asset?

Your comments are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

ImMoreBetter
12-02-2009, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Dance:
ImpStarDuece, I'll give you that one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I take note of your argument ImMoreBetter, but would counter with 1000's of bombers all coming from more or less the same direction at more or less the same altitude, at a relatively low cruise is like a conveyor belt to the mincer.

I suggested earlier perhaps 5 waves of 100 planes each split in to groups of 25 coming from all directions at high speed, might be a bit harder to counter. I don't believe this kind of attack would have been impossible to organise, even if it's not what occurred at the time. All bombing strategies evolved during the war, both for the UK and US.

My case is not to prove that the Mossie was the best, just in the OP's scenario, could it have worked as a strategy, at the moment I have heard nothing to say that it couldn't have, but that's not how it went down at the time.

I do agree that that type of attack you are suggesting would definitely cut down on flak casualties. When the heavy bombers attacked a single target (Factory, marshaling yard, etc.), each bomb group would split into 3 or so squadron formations of 12-13 planes. Then each squadron would attack consecutively. I have heard it noted several times that the flak concentration grew denser as each squadron passed. Your method would eliminate that.

There is a price however, when the bombers attacked single file, it would only take one turn to regroup into bomb group formation. Whereas it would take a while to get several bombing squadrons, all heading in different directions and a different altitudes, to regroup (Especially assuming the bombers are not going to turn around in the middle of the flak field and fly all the way through it again). That lapse in time could offer the intercepting fighters, who would be waiting just outside of the flak field, an opportunity to attack the smaller formations.

Unarmed mossies wouldn't rely on large formations to fend off fighters in the first place, so your plane would be best suited for them. But I don't think it would be as effective for B-17s and B-24s, which didn't have the speed to zip away, they relied on regrouping after the target.

It would be interesting to compare the two strategies in reality. Both could be effective. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On a related note regarding heavy bombers, does anyone know if individual bomb groups attacked from different directions? (As opposed to several bomb groups worth of squadron formations traveling in a line together)

Daiichidoku
12-02-2009, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:
They were also extremely close in performance


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

max speed 287mph @ 5000ft, service ceiling 21,000ft? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not the A-20, the A-26.

Max speed 355 mph.

The service ceiling is really the only place where the A-26 lags behind the Mossie. Of course, it was trucking an additional crew member and turrets.


Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:I guess the British made a decision. USAAF did things differently.

then explain the A/B26 Invader please </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, maybe because the USAAF used the A-26 as a light bomber (battlefield support missions) and not a strategic asset?

Your comments are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

we both goofed

i read you quoting Gunz citing the B-6, you took it as the A-26, i didnt pay enough attention to see what you meant, only what Gunz wrote

i then cited performance for the B-26, which you then somehow took for the A-20

jarink
12-02-2009, 08:15 PM
I think we can all agree that, theoretically, if you had enough Mossies, you could drop roughly the same amount of raw bomb tonnage on Berlin as with a somewhat smaller number of B-17s. I will also grant that creating the necessary air fleets to do that mission with Mossies would probably be less expensive in both aircrew and raw materials.

However, I don't know if it would possible to do so operationally. There would be a larger number of aircraft (between 25-50% depending on whose figures on bombload you use and which models of each airplane are being considered). These planes would need quite a bit of coordination not only over the target, but also during take off, formation and landing if you're going to have a relatively compact strike force. Managing the airspace over SE England was a big problem with the large USAAF raids and midair collisions were not uncommon.

If you spread the attack force out to make traffic control easier, then you run the risk of making the raid easier to intercept. Your initial squadrons might get through unscathed because they arrived before the defenders attacked, but the Lufties would figure our very quickly just where to position their fighters for intercepting the Johhnie-come-latelys. Attacks from different directions would mitigate this to an extent, but not enough to regain the element of surprise. As mentioned, there would have to be massive amounts of coordination done to minimize fratricide, not to mention making sure early waves didn't obscure the target for later waves.

M_Gunz
12-02-2009, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by ImMoreBetter:
On a related note regarding heavy bombers, does anyone know if individual bomb groups attacked from different directions? (As opposed to several bomb groups worth of squadron formations traveling in a line together)

Yes, they did at least on some raids. There is a limit to the coordination achievable simply in the timing of
arriving planes which grows with distance to the target. You try pushing 10 groups per hour for 8 hours in
different directions over the same target then be ready for something to go wrong. I'm sure that won't be
believed but battle histories show much simpler operations having problems over coordination again and again.
How do you escort such a circus? Do you escort such a circus? The whole idea is fraught with improbables
which is why large operations were run as they were and even then planes did not meet up as planned.

The Germans did have radar, the flak guns were not just searching blind for planes at altitude. The B-17's did
daylight runs in any case so to replace them with Mossies just forget about nighttime runs.

EDIT: sorry to repeat you Jarink, I was still typing while you posted!

jarink
12-02-2009, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by ImMoreBetter:
On a related note regarding heavy bombers, does anyone know if individual bomb groups attacked from different directions? (As opposed to several bomb groups worth of squadron formations traveling in a line together)

Individual groups, probably not. After mid-late 1943, groups usually flew in combat boxes as part of a larger formation with other groups from their combat wing.
Bomber formations - 398th BG website (http://www.398th.org/Research/8th_AF_Formations_Description.html)
Sometimes, groups would break the wing formation to bomb individual targets, but it would be somewhat rare for those groups to bomb the same target under those conditions.

BillSwagger
12-02-2009, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by ImMoreBetter:
On a related note regarding heavy bombers, does anyone know if individual bomb groups attacked from different directions? (As opposed to several bomb groups worth of squadron formations traveling in a line together)

Bombing missions ran from several different directions and were coordinated with a variety of formations depending on the objective. I don't think the Germans were short sited in their thinking of where to expect attacks. Really the Allies would be coming from a Westerly direction, and depending on the route would orient a path from NW to run south back toward italy or france and vice versa. The range of the planes didn't allow much room to fool the Germans in thinking "oh look, here they come from the NE", because it would require that the formation travel from the west to line up that position in the first place.

The heavies at one point also had the option of flying straight over Germany and into russia to rearm and fly a return mission. I just don't see the Mossie having the longevity for high altitude bombing runs.

JtD
12-02-2009, 10:34 PM
You're not going to avoid the fighter defenses flying over enemy territory for hours. Even if you're using smaller groups flying on different paths, high altitude, high speed.

You're also not going to outfly enemy fighters in a big formation, unless you give up that big formation.

Being intercepted would thus result in massive losses to the Mosquitos, or a dispersal of the formation, both of which is undesirable.

ImpStarDuece
12-02-2009, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:

I understand the strategy, but i don't think the Mossie had the capacity to run how people are describing it.

I’ll dig up some of my Mosquito books and post some typical mission profiles, but generally early Mosquitoes (Merlin 21,23 engines) cruised at about 21,000 -23,000 feet at 320 mph once ‘feet dry’ over the N/W European coastline.

This is with 2,000 lbs internal and 2 x 50 gal external tanks. Radius of action would typically be just under 550 miles (roughly a third of total range), which is enough to get past Berlin.

Night bomber mission profile would typically be climb out at minimum speed over England and the Channel, get up to 23-24,000 feet and the slowly descend a couple of thousand feet to settle the aircraft into a high speed cruise and avoid leaving a contrail. The early Mossies didn’t really like to get higher than 25,000 feet with a full bomb/fuel load, as they were a little unstable higher up when loaded.

They would cruise in at min weak cruise then spend the 20-30 minutes entering/exiting the target area at max cruise (about 340-350 mph). With stores out, they would fly anywhere up to 5 mph faster and would fly a gently descending flight profile.

Later Mosquitos cruised much higher and much faster, typically at 28,000 – 30,000 feet and 325-350 mph (depending on weight and altitude). They would descend near the target area.

Low level missions were different, with more varied profile. At very low level, the early Mosquitos would range cruise at about 260 mph, and fast cruise at about 285 mph. Radius of action was cut as well, because they were expected to spend most of their time at max cruise. Radius of action for low level missions was about 400 miles.

HellToupee
12-02-2009, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Being intercepted would thus result in massive losses to the Mosquitos, or a dispersal of the formation, both of which is undesirable.

Why would mossies fly in formation in the first place?

JtD
12-03-2009, 12:08 AM
To achieve a minimum amount of coordination, I guess. Of course you can send in individual planes one after the other over several hours, I think after the first two hours even the Luftwaffe would be able to set up a capable defense.

However, it's not my scenario. I asked for how Mossies would deliver 2000000lbs of bombs, and it was said they might be going in small formations of about 25 planes.

Destroy one of those, and the Mossie loss ratio is larger than the loss ratio of the heavies in the average daytime bombing missions. It's not like Schweinfurt was typical.

Gibbage1
12-03-2009, 12:15 AM
I still dont see how 500 Mossy's can effectivly attack a single target unless in formation. If not in formation, how would one coordinate such an attack? All do there own thing and just converg over the target? Thats a disaster waiting to happen. Single file? Lambs to the slaughterhouse.

It just wont work without a formation.

HellToupee
12-03-2009, 12:41 AM
Only coordination needed is arrival time all around 1-2hrs of each other.

The sky is big gibbage.

M_Gunz
12-03-2009, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
take a pill

Why? Whatcha got?

p1ngu666
12-03-2009, 01:18 AM
depends how big the target area is aswell. people forget mossies flew at night where interception is much harder, specialy as the majority of night fighters where slow, and its not really practical to dive down onto targets in the dark, as you cant see them...

mossies did have a advantage with flak, as they could move about, and you couldnt do much of that in a b17, and especialy a b24....

ironicaly the mossie benifited from the heavies or normal bombers, as development of lw fighters went towards them as it was easier

M_Gunz
12-03-2009, 01:43 AM
Coordination requires the navigators finding ground reference points to line up on well outside the target, farther
away for faster planes btw and they didn't have GPS or IL2 Map keys. That's one per angle as weather permits.
You need to be on time in the right place not dropping bombs on anyone else coming in also on time at lower alt.
So let's crowd 1000+ non- or small-formation Mossies in a spectacular array of angles and altitudes on the same
city by day when it's clear enough to find from all those angles from 24,000 to 30,000 ft in a short time because
it's better that way than B-17's and get it right.
How many minutes apart will each small formation or individual bomber be arriving? That is the precision you need
to have them arrive lined up to drop. GOOD LUCK but at least you'll use fewer pilots and crew! Don't worry about
the interceptors waiting above, you can out run them or at least hope they go after a different plane! Think of
how many escorts won't have to fly because you did it this way and don't think at all of how many LW fighters will
be there untouched by the escorts that would be there with the heavies flying bunched up the way they did.
Yessirree, no need for all those B-17's or B-24's flying daytime precision bombing missions. Mossies will do!

C'mon Daich, let's have the good pills. Mine are for blood pressure, allergies and kidneys, you got just what huh?
Let's party! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

M_Gunz
12-03-2009, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
depends how big the target area is aswell. people forget mossies flew at night where interception is much harder,

Yes but we're playing "what if" where the Mossies are replacing B-17's!
Didn't you get the memo?

Buzzsaw-
12-03-2009, 01:55 AM
Salute

The Mosquito was better used for the specialized roles for which it was designed, rather than in mass raids.

The Mossie was an incredibly versatile aircraft, capable of dozens of roles.

It could be used as a pathfinder, to place accurately the markers used by the Lancasters and Halifaxes to bomb, small groups of Mosquitos could be used for diveresionary raids, to tie up German defences while the main forces of Lancasters hit elsewhere, keeping the German defenders up all night. Mosquitos hit Berlin for 30 nights in a row for example. It could be used in daylight to attack coastal targets and shipping, it was used in daylight against the V1 sites, and against the V2 sites as well. It was used for both daylight and night recon, meteorological forecasting over German targets, and photo-reconnaisance. It was also used as a nightfighter, night intruder, day intruder, and for specialized daylight low level attacks on targets which required exceptional accuracy, like the Gestapo HQ's and Prisons in France, Holland and Denmark.

Some viz below of low level nape of the earth attacks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RAhiaFbYOI

Very detailed documentary if you have the time:

Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...cU8CNY90&feature=fvw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIbcU8CNY90&feature=fvw)

Other parts links there as well.

yuuppers
12-03-2009, 02:01 AM
Who said the Mossies would only go after one target?

Who said there would be no escorts?

HellToupee
12-03-2009, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Coordination requires the navigators finding ground reference points to line up on well outside the target, farther
away for faster planes btw and they didn't have GPS or IL2 Map keys. That's one per angle as weather permits.
You need to be on time in the right place not dropping bombs on anyone else coming in also on time at lower alt.
So let's crowd 1000+ non- or small-formation Mossies in a spectacular array of angles and altitudes on the same
city by day when it's clear enough to find from all those angles from 24,000 to 30,000 ft in a short time because
it's better that way than B-17's and get it right.
How many minutes apart will each small formation or individual bomber be arriving? That is the precision you need
to have them arrive lined up to drop. GOOD LUCK but at least you'll use fewer pilots and crew! Don't worry about
the interceptors waiting above, you can out run them or at least hope they go after a different plane! Think of
how many escorts won't have to fly because you did it this way and don't think at all of how many LW fighters will
be there untouched by the escorts that would be there with the heavies flying bunched up the way they did.
Yessirree, no need for all those B-17's or B-24's flying daytime precision bombing missions. Mossies will do!

C'mon Daich, let's have the good pills. Mine are for blood pressure, allergies and kidneys, you got just what huh?
Let's party! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Who said anything about leaving the escorts behind?

Hardly complex navigation compared to what the RAF accomplished at night

hop2002
12-03-2009, 03:01 AM
I don't want to argue that the Mossie could have replaced the heavies, but the argument over unescorted Mossies misses the fact unescorted B-17s suffered unsustainable losses, too.

If you're talking daylight bombing, you have to factor in the escorts, because deep penetration daylight bombing was impossible without them.

M_Gunz
12-03-2009, 05:57 AM
1000+ Mossies all split up into small groups or individually in the great big sky to hit Berlin in what would be
a 1000 B-17 raid that normally had escorts roving along the stream in stages now has escorts trying to meet up
with how many small groups spaced out on different schedules to cover them? Oh yeah, work like a charm, NP!
Such things were done all the time, I just haven't read about them.

1000/(Mossies per group)=groups all spread out on different paths over that great big sky
1000/2=500
1000/4=250
1000/8=125
1000/12=83 1/3
1000/20=50
1000/25=40
...are we down to the most number of coordinated groups of flights not on the same path used successfully yet?
because 25 planes per plus escorts, yup that's real stealthy there uh-huh. And *only* 40 different groups there.
1000/40=25
1000/50=20

Of course you could attack different targets piecemeal and hope your group isn't one of the ones the LW wipes out.
You won't have roving escorts along your non-existent bomber stream since it's all spread out.

I think that the LW would approve of such ideas highly. They might even send flowers and cigars with the Thank You cards.

yuuppers
12-03-2009, 06:51 AM
How many JGs west of Berlin Gunz?
How many fighters did they have?

Wiped out? You mean like the Bloody 100th that was decimated with all those escorts around and all those .50s on the bombers.

Kettenhunde
12-03-2009, 10:39 AM
I think if you are going to remove the idea of a credible defense, it does not matter which airplane carries the bombs.

BigC208
12-03-2009, 11:17 AM
1000 Mozzie raid...Coordination with fighters would be a B*tch, but doable. Think of this. If allied fighters would have a problem meeting up with Mossies, imagine the problems Germans would have intercepting them. At least the "escorts" would have sort of a notion where to meet up. I say "escorts" because I still believe escorts would not be needed. Just bands of roving fighters taking out targets of opportunity. These tactics in 1943/44 would've driven the luftwaffe underground a good year earlier.

I keep seeing guys trying to push the Mossie into the heavy bomber tactics, forget about that. Ever seen a box of B1 Bombers or Tornadoes? Nope. Speed and surprise are the Mossies strongpoints and should be milked out to the max. Now I know a Mossie is not as fast as those planes but the defense systems of ww2 were not as efficient as well. The RAF intel knew where the flak concentrations were. Routes around them could be plotted. Germans could've countered this by spreading out more, dilluting their effectiveness. So 2000 Mossie raids instead of 1000 Lanc or B17 raids would be even more confusing.

Maybe when SOW BoB comes out we can put these theories to the test online. Instead of sending 500 111's over, we use 1000 110 jabo's "escorted" by 500 109's roving in front and in between. Low level precission raids on airfields and aircraft factories. 109's won't waste fuel meeting and staying close to bombers. Be an interesting scenario to play out.

M_Gunz
12-03-2009, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
How many JGs west of Berlin Gunz?
How many fighters did they have?

Wiped out? You mean like the Bloody 100th that was decimated with all those escorts around and all those .50s on the bombers.

No, like a small group of loaded Mossies would be wiped out when run across by a hunting pack of FW's coming from above
after being vectored to them by radar equipped ground units. NOT the same as a stream of heavies guarded by fast roving
escorts but then we've gone to the high number of scattered small groups all converging to equal a 1000-B-17 strike
theory of Mossie attack. But hey, the LW wouldn't be able to get them all!

Daiichidoku
12-03-2009, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I think if you are going to remove the idea of a credible defense, it does not matter which airplane carries the bombs.

of course, Gothas will do in 1944 if there is no "credible defense"

but im not sure i see where anyone has suggested that K, certainly not in yuuppers' post

M_Gunz
12-03-2009, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by BigC208:
1000 Mozzie raid...Coordination with fighters would be a B*tch, but doable. Think of this. If allied fighters would have a problem meeting up with Mossies, imagine the problems Germans would have intercepting them. At least the "escorts" would have sort of a notion where to meet up.

Uh huh. Either the escorts stay with the Mossies all the way or they have to meet up to hours from any land based
guidance while the Germans have radar vectoring them on much shorter range. You won't have 1000 Mossies over the
target in any short period of time, the places to loiter at high alt won't be difficult to know for the intercepts.

The coordination would be a mess. Hours to get there with bombs falling often and planes coming from every angle
and altitude. Here is a clue: even with all the bombers coming in the same direction there were still bombers
below hit by bombs from above in some cases. There were still collisions between planes. It's hard to see well
in a flak saturated sky.

Kettenhunde
12-03-2009, 11:30 AM
of course, Gothas will do in 1944 if there is no "credible defense"


OK, my point is point made and you got it.

There has to be an equal and credible defense if you are going to compare is the point.

You cannot change the conditions based on which airplane your are discussing nor can you make blanket statements without defining the conditions. Both airplanes have to be compared under the same conditions.

One airplane may not be the best for each condition however...

Save you several pages of going back and forth over to arrive at the conditions.

Jaws2002
12-03-2009, 11:31 AM
I think switching to mossies in mid43-early 44 would have given Luftwaffe enough time to get a strong enough force of jet interceptors.

Daiichidoku
12-03-2009, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by yuuppers:
How many JGs west of Berlin Gunz?
How many fighters did they have?

Wiped out? You mean like the Bloody 100th that was decimated with all those escorts around and all those .50s on the bombers.

No, like a small group of loaded Mossies would be wiped out when run across by a hunting pack of FW's coming from above
after being vectored to them by radar equipped ground units. NOT the same as a stream of heavies guarded by fast roving
escorts but then we've gone to the high number of scattered small groups all converging to equal a 1000-B-17 strike
theory of Mossie attack. But hey, the LW wouldn't be able to get them all! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


and what about all those B24s still flying around in large box formations?

BigC208
12-03-2009, 11:49 AM
MGunz is right. When that small group is wiped out the other 98% gets through unmolested. I'm not sure how effective 1943/44's radar would be against wave after wave of fast, low flying Mossies and "escorts". I read memoires from Rall and Hartmann and it looks like the Russians used the tactics we're discussing here. Wave after wave of unescorted Il2's and Pe2's would attack at low level and if intercepted would be destroyed by free hunting, shwarme of very experienced German fighter pilots racking up huge scores. Meanwhile the majority that did get through mauled the wehrmacht. As a defender you just don't know where'you're going to get hit untill it's too late. Germany did not have the recources and technology to stop low flying swarms of fast bombers. If they come unescorted at 20+ thousand feet in a box Jerry could use their limmited recources, supported by radar, more efficient. If I was calling the shots that would not happen.

Daiichidoku
12-03-2009, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BigC208:
1000 Mozzie raid...Coordination with fighters would be a B*tch, but doable. Think of this. If allied fighters would have a problem meeting up with Mossies, imagine the problems Germans would have intercepting them. At least the "escorts" would have sort of a notion where to meet up.

Uh huh. Either the escorts stay with the Mossies all the way or they have to meet up to hours from any land based
guidance while the Germans have radar vectoring them on much shorter range. You won't have 1000 Mossies over the
target in any short period of time, the places to loiter at high alt won't be difficult to know for the intercepts.

The coordination would be a mess. Hours to get there with bombs falling often and planes coming from every angle
and altitude. Here is a clue: even with all the bombers coming in the same direction there were still bombers
below hit by bombs from above in some cases. There were still collisions between planes. It's hard to see well
in a flak saturated sky. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what coordination is needed? the Mossies may or may not go in groups

they hit targets in night with "acceptable" losses from collions with planes and bombs, whats the difference in daytime?

much higher speed of the Mossie means less time in flak saturated skies as awell

Daiichidoku
12-03-2009, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">of course, Gothas will do in 1944 if there is no "credible defense"


OK, my point is point made and you got it.

There has to be an equal and credible defense if you are going to compare is the point.

You cannot change the conditions based on which airplane your are discussing nor can you make blanket statements without defining the conditions. Both airplanes have to be compared under the same conditions.

One airplane may not be the best for each condition however...

Save you several pages of going back and forth over to arrive at the conditions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sure, LW would have to adjust defense to deal with Mossies

they were playing catch-up doing this with the relitively few that were operational til the end of the war, and with a high priority

more Mossies would just make this task even more difficult, and slow progress some

and as i mentioned a post or two ago, LW still has to deal with nighttime British heavies and mediums (and/including Mossies), and daytime with B24s, and with perhaps lesser criticality, B26 Marauders and B25s

M_Gunz
12-03-2009, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by BigC208:
MGunz is right. When that small group is wiped out the other 98% gets through unmolested. I'm not sure how effective 1943/44's radar would be against wave after wave of fast, low flying Mossies and "escorts". I read memoires from Rall and Hartmann and it looks like the Russians used the tactics we're discussing here. Wave after wave of unescorted Il2's and Pe2's would attack at low level and if intercepted would be destroyed by free hunting, shwarme of very experienced German fighter pilots racking up huge scores. Meanwhile the majority that did get through mauled the wehrmacht. As a defender you just don't know where'you're going to get hit untill it's too late. Germany did not have the recources and technology to stop low flying swarms of fast bombers. If they come unescorted at 20+ thousand feet in a box Jerry could use their limmited recources, supported by radar, more efficient. If I was calling the shots that would not happen.

So the Mossies that would not be striking low to avoid getting blown up from their own and others' blasts from 4000lb
bombs but rather striking from 24,000 to 30,000 ft would still arrive at low level below radar and then spring up to
full alt right at the target? Superb!
Is this still about Mossies replacing the B-17's and possibly other USAAF heavies in daylight bombings? I'm sure that
the Russians used IL2s to deliver incredible tonnage on well defended cities... NOT!

M_Gunz
12-03-2009, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
what coordination is needed?

That's all I need to see. You don't know what you're talking about. I'm not gonna bother trying to answer.

Dance
12-03-2009, 01:39 PM
You two keep bringing this forum back to it's zoo status, nobody is allowed an opinion, I am right, even if it's just what if, you all noobs blah blah.

M_Gunz
12-03-2009, 01:46 PM
I'll just leave this discussion to you future generals and national leaders then.

Dance
12-03-2009, 01:48 PM
Sniping, good one.

jarink
12-03-2009, 02:19 PM
I think escorted Mossies would have a much higher survival rate than the heavies (B-17s and B-24s; no need to talk about them separately) for a couple of reasons:

1) It would be much easier for the escorting fighters to stick with Mossies, since their cruise speeds are much closer than escorts and B-17/B-24s. No weaving to match ground speeds.
http://www.b17.org/history/interactive_tour/photos/Top_Cover.jpg

2) Number 1) leads into this point. Since it's easier for the escorts to stay with the Mossies, there should be less of a need to use relays of escorts or "pickups" over the continent. The same escorts are with them all the way to the target and back. This means either fewer escorts are needed or more effective escorts per mission.

I still think some people are underestimating the problems of coordination for 1000+ planes over one target. True, the RAF didn't have too much difficulty with coordination of their nighttime bomber streams, but that was mainly because the raids could last several hours over the target. Several hours over the target in daylight means the defending fighters have more chance to land, refuel, reload and fight against later waves of planes, which would increase overall losses.

BillSwagger
12-03-2009, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by jarink:
I think escorted Mossies would have a much higher survival rate than the heavies (B-17s and B-24s; no need to talk about them separately) for a couple of reasons:



I guess what people are still failing to see is that the mossy lacked the range to fly as high as heavy bombers could and still carry the same pay load.

Its inconceivable to think that a Mossy could run that far and that high with the same load of bombs as B-17 or B-24. Part of the reason bombers are as big as they are is so they can also hold the fuel that is required to get them through the mission safely.

This fact alone puts the mossy at lower altitudes making them easier targets for AA guns, where any escort fighters would also find havoc.
You have to think that history panned out the way it did because the big heavy bombers were needed for those runs, not because they were trying to look cool.

Again, the mossy was used at night on such raids where AA guns was less a factor.
It is pointless to post figures on the ranges and speeds of a Mossy compared to a B-17 if you don't know how to interpret them.

Bill

yuuppers
12-03-2009, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
No, like a small group of loaded Mossies would be wiped out when run across by a hunting pack of FW's coming from above
after being vectored to them by radar equipped ground units. NOT the same as a stream of heavies guarded by fast roving
escorts but then we've gone to the high number of scattered small groups all converging to equal a 1000-B-17 strike
theory of Mossie attack. But hey, the LW wouldn't be able to get them all!

The Lw created 2 new units flying 109s to specifically to go after the Mossies, JG25 and JG50. Afaik they had no success.

JG25
Formed 21.7.43 in Gardelegen and Berlin-Staaken, as Jagdgruppe Nord der ObdL (a high-altitude fighter unit (anti-Mosquito)). On 15.8.43 became JG25 with:

Stab I./JG25 from Stab/JGr.Nord der ObdL
1./JG25 from 1./JGr.Nord der ObdL
2./JG25 from 2./JGr.Nord der ObdL
3./JG25 from 3./JGr.Nord der ObdL

Disbanded 12.43, but 2./JG25 became Jagdstaffel Erla.

JG50

Formed 21.7.43 in Wiesbaden-Erbenheim, as Jagdgruppe Süd der ObdL (a high-altitude fighter unit (anti-Mosquito)). On 15.8.43 became JG50 with:

Stab/JG50 from Stab/JGr.Süd der ObdL
1./JG50 from 1./JGr.Süd der ObdL
2./JG50 from 2./JGr.Süd der ObdL
3./JG50 from 3./JGr.Süd der ObdL

Disbanded in late 10.43, absorbed by I./JG301

Xiolablu3
12-03-2009, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
what coordination is needed?

That's all I need to see. You don't know what you're talking about. I'm not gonna bother trying to answer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF managed it very succesfully at night in Lancs and other aircraft so why not in the daytime with Mosquitos?

Lancasters, Halifaxes, Mosquitos and Stirlings took off one after another and flew to the target to convearge over the target and bomb in complete darkness.

Wouldnt it be even easiser in daytime when they can actually see and also in a vastly more manouverable plane?

yuuppers
12-03-2009, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I think if you are going to remove the idea of a credible defense, it does not matter which airplane carries the bombs.

What is your expert opinion of a credible defense?

Dance
12-03-2009, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:

It is pointless to post figures on the ranges and speeds of a Mossy compared to a B-17 if you don't know how to interpret them.

Bill

Do you?

thefruitbat
12-03-2009, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Dance:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:

It is pointless to post figures on the ranges and speeds of a Mossy compared to a B-17 if you don't know how to interpret them.

Bill


Do you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol

yuuppers
12-03-2009, 04:04 PM
FYI. Do what you want with them.

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

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/mossieno24tm.jpg

M_Gunz
12-03-2009, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
what coordination is needed?

That's all I need to see. You don't know what you're talking about. I'm not gonna bother trying to answer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF managed it very succesfully at night in Lancs and other aircraft so why not in the daytime with Mosquitos?

Lancasters, Halifaxes, Mosquitos and Stirlings took off one after another and flew to the target to convearge over the target and bomb in complete darkness.

Wouldnt it be even easiser in daytime when they can actually see and also in a vastly more manouverable plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay Xio, I'll bite!
How many different paths did they run over a single target with what kind of time separation between each
bunch going through at a different angle regardless of height? Did they ever have bombers crossing the
same target at the same time from different heights? Sorry old bean, didn't see your unlit kite passing
by down there in the night. Poor view from the old bombsight, I'm afraid. Better luck next life! I'll
tell the chief to tally another acceptable loss then.
Because maybe they did.
The thing is you can get a good idea about the most they could coordinate with acceptable losses since
there were times they exceeded operational capabilities. You can run wings or boxes or whatever spaced
out along a line or at least following a certain width corridor or a few of those, but 80 to 250 paths
or more? I'd like to see what's the most they did run with acceptable traffic accidents first.

In another *sarcasm: heavy* perfectly realistic *sarcasm: off* direction this would make a good DF setting.
Red base at middle left edge. Blue not to fly past the middle of the left half of the map. Wide map needed.
Target city in the middle of the right half of the map, lot of mixed AAA in and around the target.
8 Blue bases on the outer circle of AAA. Red may attack but not camp, they have a long way home IRL.
40 players flying Mossies, each must fly 25 sorties ASAP with time, points and losses counting.
20 players flying escort and 20 players flying intercept. Radar vectoring will be in SOW so there needs
to be scattered AAA in the right 3/4 of the map as well as the target-city AAA. Seeing the fire from
those will serve in lieu of radio alerts. No map icons or externals, cockpit view.
Any extra players go half to escorts and half to interceptors.

Jolly Good Luck getting that enough players to run 1000 bombing sorties on the target in some reasonable
time period.

With fewer players Blue has to have at least 1 manned for every 2 Red except that the minimum number of
Blue player is 8. So 9 players is 8 Blue and 1 Red, game over if there are not enough bombers running
to simulate the effect of a massive daylight bombing raid.

How fast can you run 25 sorties to simulate 25 different Mossies on the far end of a run to Berlin?
Of course that's with 4000 lb payload, external tanks considered just dropped and 40 bombers manned
or someone has to do make-up laps to total 1000. Or maybe 500 and double score, losses and time?
Set the outside time limit ahead or just see how long it takes? With 40 players there could be 30
Mossies, no limit on the Mossies but there can only be 1 escort per manned Mossie as it is a bombing
raid simulation and not an air superiority with occasional bombing clear out to Berlin simulation
which is NOT replacing B-17's with Mossies but rather normal Mossie ops as they happened.

How big the map? Smaller, you can cross faster. Bigger you have more room to work approach angles
and the interceptors have to spread out farther patrolling and even more room between the outer AAA.

Think of getting enough traffic to average the effect of 100's of B-17's per hour on target and keep
it going that long online... it'd be a busy night. The stats including time would be interesting.

M_Gunz
12-03-2009, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
FYI. Do what you want with them.

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

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/mossieno24tm.jpg

How many massive precision same-target B-17's over Berlin type strikes?

0 made with 0 losses

yuuppers
12-03-2009, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How many massive precision same-target B-17's over Berlin type strikes?

0 made with 0 losses

That is 0 - 0 for the B-17, right?

In Jan 1944, a 36 a/c group was 500yds wide and you expect precision. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

BillSwagger
12-03-2009, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Dance:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:

It is pointless to post figures on the ranges and speeds of a Mossy compared to a B-17 if you don't know how to interpret them.

Bill

Do you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

yes


Point is, when someone says the Mossy runs at 20,000ft holding 2000lbs of bombs with a range of 550 miles, how far do you think its going to get with 4000lbs of bombs at 28000 ft? It just doesn't add up to what the heavies were for.
BTW, i'm sure you're aware that the distance from London to Berlin is a little over 600 miles.
The mossy's gotta drop bomb tonnage or not climb so high if it wants to get to Berlin and back.
OTOH, I think the Mossy might've had the luxery of diving away after dropping the bombs and making a return trip at a lower altitudes much like other fighter bombers.

When you speak of coordinated bombing runs, keep in mind they did similar low level bombing raids with P-47s and Typhoons. Different bomb tonnage but similar ranges and coordination at even faster speeds.



Bill

yuuppers
12-03-2009, 07:31 PM
Bill, how did the Light Night Striking Force of Mossies manage to drop 4000lb block busters on Berlin?

I think Hop gave the number of bombs.

ImpStarDuece
12-03-2009, 07:40 PM
Except that RAF bombers were based around East Anglia, and the distances from East Anglia to Berlin are around 510-575 miles.

And, Mosquitos could get to Dresden with 4,000 lbs bombs, which is (marginally) further from their bases than Berlin.

Edit: Some massed Mosquito missions:

1/2 January 1945

28 Mosquitos to Hanau and 27 to Hannover (both 'spoof' raids), 42 RCM sorties, 59 Mosquito patrols. No aircraft lost. The No 100 Group Mosquitos claimed 6 German night fighters destroyed.


2/3 January 1945:

53 Mosquitos to Berlin, 9 to Castrop-Rauxel and 7 to Hanau, 49 RCM sorties, 41 Mosquito patrols. 2 Mosquitos were lost, 1 each from the Berlin and Castrop-Rauxel raids.


4/5 January 1945

66 Mosquitos to Berlin and 7 to Neuss, 2 Halifax RCM sorties. No aircraft lost.

Some of the Light Night Striking Force (No 8 Group) Mosquitos which attacked Berlin on this night flew 2 sorties each. These Mosquitos took off in the early evening, bombed Berlin returned and changed crews, and then flew to Berlin again. This method of augmenting the Mosquito campaign against Berlin was used several times during the long nights of midwinter.


5/6 January 1945:

69 Mosquitos to Berlin, 8 to Neuss and 6 to Castrop-Rauxel, 58 RCM sorties, 55 Mosquito patrols. 4 Mosquitos lost, 2 from the Berlin raid and 2 from No 100 Group.


17/18 January 1945:

72 Mosquitos to Magdeburg, 8 to Ruthen oil-storage depot and 3 each to Cologne, Frankfurt, Koblenz and Mannheim, 33 RCM sorties, 13 Mosquito patrols. No aircraft lost.

18/19 January 1945

56 Mosquitos to Sterkrade oil refinery, 12 each, on H2S trials, to Düsseldorf, Kassel and Koblenz and 7 to Ruthen oil depot. 1 Mosquito from the Sterkrade raid crashed in Belgium.

21/22 January 1945

76 Mosquitos to Kassel and 4 to Mainz, 23 RCM sorties, 9 Mosquito patrols, 2 Hudsons on Resistance operations. 1 Mosquito lost from the Kassel raid.


29/30 January 1945

59 Mosquitos; 50 aircraft reached and bombed Berlin without loss.



1/2 February 1945:

122 Mosquitos to Berlin, 8 to Bruckhausen benzol plant, 6 to Hannover, 4 to Nuremberg and 4 dropping dummy target indicators at both Mannheim and Stuttgart, 64 RCM sorties, 47 Mosquito patrols. No aircraft lost.


5/6 February 1945:

63 Mosquitos to Berlin, 7 to Magdeburg and 6 to Würzburg, 1 RCM sortie. 1 Mosquito lost from the Berlin raid.

10/11 February 1945

82 Mosquitos to Hannover and 11 to Essen, 24 RCM sorties, 22 Mosquito patrols. No aircraft lost.

12/13 February 1945

72 Mosquitos to Stuttgart, 11 to Misburg, 4 to Würzburg and 3 each 'on H2S trials' to Cologne, Frankfurt, Koblenz and Wiesbaden, 1 Mosquito on an RCM sortie. No aircraft lost.

BillSwagger
12-03-2009, 07:42 PM
obviously they flew lower at night which allowed them to get to berlin and back with out being spotted as easily by AA gunners on the ground until maybe they had already dropped there bombs and left.

I don't doubt the Mossie could get to Berlin, i just don't see it being used in the capacity that a heavy bomber was in a daytime raid that required higher altitudes to avoid being intercepted as well as being easy flak targets.


to match the range of the bombers, the Mossie would need to fly lower or lower its bomb tonnage. Both of which defeat the purpose of saving man power or planes.

The lower you fly the more danger there is of flak, or interception.
You carry less bombs, you'd need more planes and more men to man them.

the end.



Bill

JtD
12-03-2009, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

Edit: Some massed Mosquito missions:

Would be interesting to see Halifaxes from the same period.

M_Gunz
12-03-2009, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
obviously they flew lower at night which allowed them to get to berlin and back with out being spotted as easily by AA gunners on the ground until maybe they had already dropped there bombs and left.

I don't doubt the Mossie could get to Berlin, i just don't see it being used in the capacity that a heavy bomber was in a daytime raid that required higher altitudes to avoid being intercepted as well as being easy flak targets.


to match the range of the bombers, the Mossie would need to fly lower or lower its bomb tonnage. Both of which defeat the purpose of saving man power or planes.

The lower you fly the more danger there is of flak, or interception.
You carry less bombs, you'd need more planes and more men to man them.

the end.



Bill

You don't get anywhere near full range down low. You make your best TAS up high at lower IAS (read: Drag).
That's why they specify 20,000 ft or other alt.

M_Gunz
12-03-2009, 10:45 PM
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 ImpStarDuece:

Edit: Some massed Mosquito missions:

Would be interesting to see Halifaxes from the same period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also what loads they carried.

M_Gunz
12-03-2009, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How many massive precision same-target B-17's over Berlin type strikes?

0 made with 0 losses

That is 0 - 0 for the B-17, right?

In Jan 1944, a 36 a/c group was 500yds wide and you expect precision. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That depends. How was the weather?
I remember when the USAF bombed a Chinese Embassy by mistake about 10 years ago. Mistakes happen.
Wrong pickle barrel.

And then of course nobody in Mossies ever hit the wrong target instead of a Gestapo HQ, did they?
Mistakes happen. That's how you learn operational limits.

HellToupee
12-03-2009, 11:06 PM
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 jarink:
I think escorted Mossies would have a much higher survival rate than the heavies (B-17s and B-24s; no need to talk about them separately) for a couple of reasons:



I guess what people are still failing to see is that the mossy lacked the range to fly as high as heavy bombers could and still carry the same pay load.

Its inconceivable to think that a Mossy could run that far and that high with the same load of bombs as B-17 or B-24. Part of the reason bombers are as big as they are is so they can also hold the fuel that is required to get them through the mission safely.

This fact alone puts the mossy at lower altitudes making them easier targets for AA guns, where any escort fighters would also find havoc.
You have to think that history panned out the way it did because the big heavy bombers were needed for those runs, not because they were trying to look cool.

Again, the mossy was used at night on such raids where AA guns was less a factor.
It is pointless to post figures on the ranges and speeds of a Mossy compared to a B-17 if you don't know how to interpret them.

Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

inconceivable? The reason bombers were so big was because they were weighted down with large crews and defensive guns.

BillSwagger
12-04-2009, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You don't get anywhere near full range down low. You make your best TAS up high at lower IAS (read: Drag).
That's why they specify 20,000 ft or other alt.

I know this, and we aren't talking about flying Mossies on deck or at 2000ft. We are talking about Mossies carrying 2 tons of bombs to Berlin and back.
It has more to do with the climb than the cruising altitude. You can get further climbing to a 10kft and cruising, then climbing to 20k ft, or 30 kft. Now add 2 tons of bombs. With two tons of bombs, the climb and cruise will require more fuel. Getting to Berlin in a Mossie at 20k ft with 4000lbs of bombs seems to contradict prior information seeing as the plane had a range of 550 miles at 20,000ft with only one ton of bombs.

I'm not gonna run through the basics of aeronautics, cause i know that you already know how more weight needs more power to produce more lift (more drag) to keep the plane in the air.

So to use the Mossy as you would a heavy bomber, climbing it to 20-30k ft, and flying it over Berlin, seems nearly impossible.

This is where i get away with saying, less bomb tonnage, or lower altitude if the Mossie is going to get to Berlin and back.


I think its an important tactical decision because flying under 20,000 ft would make formation more vulnerable to interceptors as well as flak. This doesn't mean they couldn't do it, i just have to wonder what the survival rates would be like considering heavy bombers were shot down quit easily by flak much higher than 20,000ft.


Bill

ImpStarDuece
12-04-2009, 12:34 AM
You forget a couple of things.

1. Mosquitos increased their internal tankage as the war went on by about 65 Imp gal, with the addition of more fuel cells in the wings.

2. Mosquitos increased their external tankage as the war went on. Wing drop tanks went from 40 gal to 50 gal to 100 gal.

Doing some additional research, and the 550 mile figure I found was for a F/B Mosquito (a Mk VI), with 2,000 lbs bombs internal as well as full guns and ammo.

This is with 526 Imp gal of fuel (426 internal plus 80 gal external) and a 70 gal reserve, for a total of 596 gal.

Later Mk IXs and XVIs carried up to 760 Imp gal, or about 30% more fuel. This pushes their range out another 150 miles or so.

The Mosquito was also more efficient the higher it flew.

The FB Mk VI manual shows the aircraft consuming 115 gal/hour at 290 mph at sea level, 82 gal/hr at 10,000 feet, 78 gal/hr at 20,000 ft and 75 gal/hr at 25,000 feet.

At low level and max weak cruise, the aircraft is getting, at best, 2.65 air miles per gallon.

At high alt and max weak cruise, that's up to 3.3 air miles per gallon, a 25% improvement. At max cruise its still at 2.95 per gal.

For later marks, climb to 30,000 feet was done in about 22 minutes, at +12 lbs/2850 rpm, with fuel flow at approximately 210 gal/hour.

This means a late mark Mossie can climb to 30,000 feet (covering about 70 miles in the climb and consuming about 70 gal) and then have enough fuel to fly at best cruise (365 mph +) for another 2,000 miles.

BillSwagger
12-04-2009, 12:54 AM
Whats your book say about the Mk 30, there looks to be about 526 built of those. Regarded as the best Mossie by some reads.

also

B. Mk 25
B Mk 20

were considered the long range/high altitude bomber variants.

i just wonder if they got the same range still carrying the 4000lb bomb provision of the Mk XVI or if there bomb loads were much lighter.



Bill

Low_Flyer_MkIX
12-04-2009, 12:59 AM
As an aside there's a 'Flypast' Mossie special publication available in all good newsagents. Packed full of interesting Mossie tit-bits and pics. Did you know that the U.S.A's most successful night-fighter pilot got all of his kills in a Mossie for instance?

Just a heads up for the faithful, carry on chaps.

hop2002
12-04-2009, 01:54 AM
Mosquito performance, from Mosquito by Sharp and Bowyer:

http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/6847/mosquitobxvi.jpg

and consumption figures:

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/6438/mossiecruisespeedsharpb.jpg

M_Gunz
12-04-2009, 02:17 AM
IAS/TAS Chart (http://www.maw-superaereo.it/utility/IAS-TAS-CHART.pdf)

At 8km alt 200 IAS is 305 TAS.

hop2002
12-04-2009, 03:22 AM
No, that's a table of CAS to TAS. You can't convert IAS to TAS without knowing the particular instrument errors on the aircraft.

If you look at Mike Williams site you should be able to get the position and compressibility corrections for the Mossie to convert IAS to CAS. For the Mosquito IX (which is similar to the XVI) at cruise speed at 28,000 ft, the combined position and compressibility corrections add up to 8 mph. IAS was 221, TAS 336 mph.

Bremspropeller
12-04-2009, 05:44 AM
I'm gonna nitpick:

Compressibility taken into account makes IAS over CAS (position) to EAS.
Now take temperature into account and you get TAS.


Would be nice if someone could collect all the footage and open up a dedicated Mossie-thred.

mhuxt
12-04-2009, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Whats your book say about the Mk 30, there looks to be about 526 built of those. Regarded as the best Mossie by some reads.

also

B. Mk 25
B Mk 20

were considered the long range/high altitude bomber variants.

i just wonder if they got the same range still carrying the 4000lb bomb provision of the Mk XVI or if there bomb loads were much lighter.



Bill

The Mk.30 was a night fighter.

The 20 and the 25 were Canadian-built bomber versions with single-stage Merlins or Packard Merlins, armed with 4x500 lbs.

The IX and the XVI on the other hand had two-stage high altitude Merlins, the XVI having the bulged bomb bay for the 4,000lb. bomb.

Where did you get this "were considered the long range/high altitude bomber variants" bollox from?

Either way, both single-stage and two-stage versions went off to Berlin with slipper tanks at normal performance. See Sharp & Bowyer, Blunt etc.

yuuppers
12-04-2009, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Whats your book say about the Mk 30, there looks to be about 526 built of those. Regarded as the best Mossie by some reads.

also

B. Mk 25
B Mk 20

were considered the long range/high altitude bomber variants.

i just wonder if they got the same range still carrying the 4000lb bomb provision of the Mk XVI or if there bomb loads were much lighter.

Bill

Those 20 series Mk number are for Canadian production using Packard-Merlins of British Mks.

Worth reading
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmoss.html

yuuppers
12-04-2009, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
That depends. How was the weather?
I remember when the USAF bombed a Chinese Embassy by mistake about 10 years ago. Mistakes happen.
Wrong pickle barrel.

And then of course nobody in Mossies ever hit the wrong target instead of a Gestapo HQ, did they?
Mistakes happen. That's how you learn operational limits.

Bad weather, the bombing accuracy would be worse. A formation 1500' wide and with a CEP of a 1000' or more dropping bombs on the lead bomb aimers command will have bombs landing a long way from the intended target.

That would be the Danish school incident in Copenhagen. Since you only want to read what you want to read, a Mossie crashed into the school and the following Mossies thought the burning building was the Gestapo HQ.

When the first wave passed the goods yard one of the Mosquitos hit a 30 metre lamp post and crashed near the French school (see the map). The rest of the wave found and bombed the target. The second wave got confused by the smoke and flames from the crashed Mosquito. Some realized the mistake before they bombed and turned toward the Shellhus, but only one of the planes were able to bomb the target.

One or two of the planes in the 2nd wave dropped their bombs on the French school. The third wave approached Copenhagen from the west, passing the ZOO on their way in. All but one of the planes in the third wave dropped their bombs on the French school killing 123 civilians of whom 87 were children.

Kettenhunde
12-04-2009, 06:51 AM
and compressibility corrections for the Mossie


Compressibility is a function of the environment not the aircraft.

There is no "compressibility correction for the mossie". That correction applies to any aircraft at that speed and pressure altitude.


Now take temperature into account and you get TAS.

Correct, TAS is at density altitude.

Xiolablu3
12-04-2009, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
what coordination is needed?

That's all I need to see. You don't know what you're talking about. I'm not gonna bother trying to answer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF managed it very succesfully at night in Lancs and other aircraft so why not in the daytime with Mosquitos?

Lancasters, Halifaxes, Mosquitos and Stirlings took off one after another and flew to the target to convearge over the target and bomb in complete darkness.

Wouldnt it be even easiser in daytime when they can actually see and also in a vastly more manouverable plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay Xio, I'll bite!
How many different paths did they run over a single target with what kind of time separation between each
bunch going through at a different angle regardless of height? Did they ever have bombers crossing the
same target at the same time from different heights? Sorry old bean, didn't see your unlit kite passing
by down there in the night. Poor view from the old bombsight, I'm afraid. Better luck next life! I'll
tell the chief to tally another acceptable loss then.
Because maybe they did.
The thing is you can get a good idea about the most they could coordinate with acceptable losses since
there were times they exceeded operational capabilities. You can run wings or boxes or whatever spaced
out along a line or at least following a certain width corridor or a few of those, but 80 to 250 paths
or more? I'd like to see what's the most they did run with acceptable traffic accidents first.

In another *sarcasm: heavy* perfectly realistic *sarcasm: off* direction this would make a good DF setting.
Red base at middle left edge. Blue not to fly past the middle of the left half of the map. Wide map needed.
Target city in the middle of the right half of the map, lot of mixed AAA in and around the target.
8 Blue bases on the outer circle of AAA. Red may attack but not camp, they have a long way home IRL.
40 players flying Mossies, each must fly 25 sorties ASAP with time, points and losses counting.
20 players flying escort and 20 players flying intercept. Radar vectoring will be in SOW so there needs
to be scattered AAA in the right 3/4 of the map as well as the target-city AAA. Seeing the fire from
those will serve in lieu of radio alerts. No map icons or externals, cockpit view.
Any extra players go half to escorts and half to interceptors.

Jolly Good Luck getting that enough players to run 1000 bombing sorties on the target in some reasonable
time period.

With fewer players Blue has to have at least 1 manned for every 2 Red except that the minimum number of
Blue player is 8. So 9 players is 8 Blue and 1 Red, game over if there are not enough bombers running
to simulate the effect of a massive daylight bombing raid.

How fast can you run 25 sorties to simulate 25 different Mossies on the far end of a run to Berlin?
Of course that's with 4000 lb payload, external tanks considered just dropped and 40 bombers manned
or someone has to do make-up laps to total 1000. Or maybe 500 and double score, losses and time?
Set the outside time limit ahead or just see how long it takes? With 40 players there could be 30
Mossies, no limit on the Mossies but there can only be 1 escort per manned Mossie as it is a bombing
raid simulation and not an air superiority with occasional bombing clear out to Berlin simulation
which is NOT replacing B-17's with Mossies but rather normal Mossie ops as they happened.

How big the map? Smaller, you can cross faster. Bigger you have more room to work approach angles
and the interceptors have to spread out farther patrolling and even more room between the outer AAA.

Think of getting enough traffic to average the effect of 100's of B-17's per hour on target and keep
it going that long online... it'd be a busy night. The stats including time would be interesting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I didnt mean no coordination is needed, as Dai suggested, my question was just to you, that if they could do it at night with heavy bombers, couldnt they do it in the day with Mossies?

M_Gunz
12-04-2009, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
Since you only want to read what you want to read, a Mossie crashed into the school and the following Mossies thought the burning building was the Gestapo HQ.

Your interpretation while the truth is I wasn't about to quote details from something I read twice over 10 years ago.
But you have your own idea.

You think that is not an example of mistakes being made? Was I wrong about that? Does it make that normal ops?
Compare the daylight to night bombing on average, the daylight strikes were more precise. Exceptions occurred.

Frequent_Flyer
12-05-2009, 08:10 AM
The B-25 was far superior to the Mosie. If I'm taking a twin engined bomber this is the craft. Low or high altitude it excelled at both. Large formations of unarmed Mosie's would be easy "meat ". The Mosie was used for anti shipping around Norway, they were escorted by P-51's of the PAF.

yuuppers
12-05-2009, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by yuuppers:
Since you only want to read what you want to read, a Mossie crashed into the school and the following Mossies thought the burning building was the Gestapo HQ.

Your interpretation while the truth is I wasn't about to quote details from something I read twice over 10 years ago.
But you have your own idea.

You think that is not an example of mistakes being made? Was I wrong about that? Does it make that normal ops?
Compare the daylight to night bombing on average, the daylight strikes were more precise. Exceptions occurred. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should have check the facts before making such a erroneous statement.

Shellhaus was an accident of war unlike the Chinese Embassy which was the intended target.

Actually RAF BC bombing was more precise than the 8th AF. I know you won't believe me.

Bremspropeller
12-05-2009, 08:28 AM
Actually RAF BC bombing was more precise than the 8th AF.


Understandably...it's esier to hit a CITY than a plant http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

M_Gunz
12-05-2009, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
Shellhaus was an accident of war unlike the Chinese Embassy which was the intended target.

The building was the target, the SNAFU was in identification of the building cause given was "bad map" which
led to the credit card commercial parody, an accurate map of downtown Sarajevo... priceless after the names
and prices of a bomb and a jet to drop it with.

What part of I didn't fill in a bunch of detail from something I read 10 years ago is so confusing that I seem
to care to pick bits about what I did not tell? I don't CARE where the accidents were made or if they are the
same KINDs of accidents. That ain't the pernt. Accidents happened and so did success. Nobody got them all.

Kettenhunde
12-05-2009, 10:15 AM
Understandably...it's esier to hit a CITY than a plant Roll Eyes

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

hop2002
12-05-2009, 10:15 AM
Understandably...it's esier to hit a CITY than a plant

No, RAF raids actually were more accurate. The reason is the weather was bad over Germany, and the Germans used to create smokescreens to hide the target, so the USAAF frequently had to use the same electronic bombing aids bomber command did. But Bomber Command had been concentrating on electronic bombing aids for years, whereas the USAAF adopted them as an expedient at the last minute, so the RAF was a good deal more accurate with them.
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/7830/usaafbombingaccuracyh2x.jpg

This is from the USSBS, which gave it as an example of the attacks on 3 large German oil plants:
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/9119/usaafbombingaccuracyuss.jpg

Kettenhunde
12-05-2009, 10:24 AM
No, RAF raids actually were more accurate. The reason is the weather was bad over Germany, and the Germans used to create smokescreens to hide the target,

You post a report detailing factual accuracy based on cloud cover and then make an unsubstantiated claim trying to link that report to a claim the RAF was more accurate?

I don't get it.

Do you have facts showing RAF BC was more accurate at hitting a precision target as per USAAF doctrine or are you claiming that BC was more accurate at hitting their intended target...the city?

I would agree that BC was more accurate at hitting their intended target of a city than the USAAF was in hitting precision targets from high altitude, sure.

You will have to post some actual facts before I swallow the claim that BC was more accurate at hitting precision targets from high altitude than the USAAF. I tend to think they were probably close to the same with maybe the USAAF having the edge in experience.

Bremspropeller
12-05-2009, 10:43 AM
The BC was so precise upon hitting precision-targets, they only needed about 5,000 missions to sink the Tirpitz. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JtD
12-05-2009, 10:48 AM
In good weather conditions, the USAAF could manage more than a third of their bombs to hit within 1000 feet.

JtD
12-05-2009, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The BC was so precise upon hitting precision-targets, they only needed about 5,000 missions to sink the Tirpitz. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I think you are confusing the RN with the BC, but then I don't know what you're counting in the first place.

Dance
12-05-2009, 11:07 AM
He's certainly not counting missions, where did this figure of 5,000 come from http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

hop2002
12-05-2009, 11:08 AM
I don't get it.

The report shows why the 8th AF were less accurate. In September, October, November and December 1944 35% of all 8th AF bombing was using H2X through 10/10 cloud.


Do you have facts showing RAF BC was more accurate at hitting a precision target as per USAAF doctrine

The table from the USSBS oil report? I did add that in an edit a minute or so after I'd first posted, so apologies if you haven't seen it.

But I'm not the one making the claim. I'm merely repeating what Richard G Davis has written:


The evidence indicates that Bomber Command,
on the whole, delivered more of its bombs closer to its aiming points than
USSTAF.


The BC was so precise upon hitting precision-targets, they only needed about 5,000 missions to sink the Tirpitz.

The RAF flew 126 sorties against the Tirpitz in 1942 and achieved no hits.

In 1944 they flew 3 operations against Tirpitz. On the first 16 Lancasters carried Tallboys. The Germans deployed a smokescreen, 11 Lancasters bombed through it, 1 hit. The hit crippled the Tirpitz and the Germans decided it was not worthwhile carrying out full repairs.

On the second operation by 38 Lancasters heavy cloud meant there were no hits.

On the third operation 32 Lancasters carrying Tallboys achieved 2 hits, sinking the Tirpitz.

JtD
12-05-2009, 11:22 AM
The report shows why the 8th AF were less accurate. In September, October, November and December 1944 35% of all 8th AF bombing was using H2X through 10/10 cloud.

Am I correct to assume that the remaining 42% managed 30%+ within 1000 feet?

yuuppers
12-05-2009, 11:43 AM
How precise can the 8th AF be when the formation was 500yd x 200 long?

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/formation_08.jpg

In the fall of 1944, only seven per cent of all bombs dropped by the Eighth Air Force hit within 1,000ft of their aim point; even a fighter-bomber in a 40 degree dive releasing a bomb at 7,000 ft could have a circular error (CEP) of as much as 1,000 ft. It took 108 B-17 bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 per cent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 by 500 ft area (a German power-generation plant.)

Kettenhunde
12-05-2009, 11:51 AM
The report shows why the 8th AF were less accurate.

The report says absolutely NOTHING about the RAF, Bomber Command, or any comparison in bombing accuracy between the two organizations.

It only reports the facts from the USAAF. The comparison between the two organizations is all your own speculation.

Ok, I see BG Davi's quote:


The evidence indicates that Bomber Command, on the whole, delivered more of its bombs closer to its aiming points than
USSTAF.

I agree with it too. I don't see where he says anything about the claim that BC was more accurate at hitting precision targets from high altitude than the USAAF.

BC targets were cities BC was more accurate in hitting them than the 8th USAAF hit precision targets from high altitudes.

This is what the USSBS concludes about targeting:


The importance of careful selection of targets for air attack is emphasized by the German experience. The Germans were far more concerned over attacks on one or more of their basic industries and services -- their oil, chemical, or steel industries or their power or transportation networks -- than they were over attacks on their armament industry or the city areas. The most serious attacks were those which destroyed the industry or service which most indispensably served other industries. The Germans found it clearly more important to devise measures for the protection of basic industries and services than for the protection of factories turning out finished products.

http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AA...Summary.html#taoo%22 (http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/ETO-Summary.html#taoo%22)

I see nothing comparing the accuracy of BC precision high altitude targeting to the USAAF precision high altitude targeting.

Do you have a link?

Kettenhunde
12-05-2009, 11:54 AM
How precise can the 8th AF be when the formation was 500yd x 200 long?

Obviously as precise as their definition of precision high altitude bombing and the targeting technology of the day allowed.

Perhaps your are trying to compare 1940's technology to a modern JDAM?

yuuppers
12-05-2009, 12:03 PM
Since you seemed to have read only part of the post,


<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">In the fall of 1944, only seven per cent of all bombs dropped by the Eighth Air Force hit within 1,000ft of their aim point; even a fighter-bomber in a 40 degree dive releasing a bomb at 7,000 ft could have a circular error (CEP) of as much as 1,000 ft. It took 108 B-17 bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 per cent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 by 500 ft area (a German power-generation plant.) In the fall of 1944, only seven per cent of all bombs dropped by the Eighth Air Force hit within 1,000ft of their aim point; even a fighter-bomber in a 40 degree dive releasing a bomb at 7,000 ft could have a circular error (CEP) of as much as 1,000 ft.

It took 108 B-17 bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 per cent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 by 500 ft area (a German power-generation plant.)</span>

Kettenhunde
12-05-2009, 12:11 PM
The U. S. Army Air Forces entered the European war with the firm view that specific industries and services were the most promising targets in the enemy economy, and they believed that if these targets were to be hit accurately, the attacks had to be made in daylight. A word needs to be said on the problem of accuracy in attack. Before the war, the U. S. Army Air Forces had advanced bombing techniques to their highest level of development and had trained a limited number of crews to a high degree of precision in bombing under target range conditions, thus leading to the expressions "pin point" and "pickle barrel" bombing. However, it was not possible to approach such standards of accuracy under battle conditions imposed over Europe. Many limiting factors intervened; target obscuration by clouds, fog, smoke screens and industrial haze; enemy fighter opposition which necessitated defensive bombing formations, thus restricting freedom of maneuver; antiaircraft artillery defenses, demanding minimum time exposure of the attacking force in order to keep losses down; and finally, time limitations imposed on combat crew training after the war began.

It was considered that enemy opposition made formation flying and formation attack a necessary tactical and technical procedure. Bombing patterns resulted -- only a portion of which could fall on small precision targets. The rest spilled over

--4--

on adjacent plants, or built-up areas, or in open fields. Accuracy ranged from poor to excellent. When visual conditions were favorable and flak defenses were not intense, bombing results were at their best. Unfortunately, the major portion of bombing operations over Germany had to be conducted under weather and battle conditions that restricted bombing technique, and accuracy suffered accordingly. Conventionally the air forces designated as "the target area" a circle having a radius of 1000 feet around the aiming point of attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision targets fell within this target area. A peak accuracy of 70% was reached for the month of February 1945.

http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AA...mmary.html#eaocar%22 (http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/ETO-Summary.html#eaocar%22)


Since you seemed to have read only part of the post,

No I just read the USAAF defintion of precision bombing which you then posted.

If our definition of precision is a 666 yard wide circle, then a 500 yard front fits it.

Kind of common sense isn't it?

So now you have the answer to your question:


How precise can the 8th AF be when the formation was 500yd x 200 long?

Very precise...

hop2002
12-05-2009, 12:48 PM
Am I correct to assume that the remaining 42% managed 30%+ within 1000 feet?

I don't know. I do know 8th AF accuracy was dropping even in good conditions at the time because flak was forcing them to fly higher.

The USSBS example of the attacks on the oil facilities shows in good daylight conditions the 8th got 26.8% of their bombs within the plant fences. The 3 plants together covered 3.5 square miles.

But it's worth pointing out that even if accuracy under good conditions was 30% within 1,000 ft, then the combined total would be about 13% within 1,000 ft.


Ok, I see BG Davi's quote:

quote:
The evidence indicates that Bomber Command, on the whole, delivered more of its bombs closer to its aiming points than
USSTAF.



I agree with it too. I don't see where he says anything about the claim that BC was more accurate at hitting precision targets from high altitude than the USAAF.

BC targets were cities BC was more accurate in hitting them than the 8th USAAF hit precision targets from high altitudes.

Crumpp, do you understand what an "aiming point" is? It's a point. That point might be over a factory, it might be over a city. It might be over a corn field. Doesn't matter, because Davis is talking about how close bombs were to that point, not how many bombs hit the city, factory or corn field.

And you are still ignoring the graph from the USSBS. Why? The USSBS chose it as an example. It shows the percentage of bombs hitting within the plant fences. Higher for the RAF.

Kettenhunde
12-05-2009, 01:11 PM
Crumpp, do you understand what an "aiming point" is?


Certainly I understand what an "aiming point" is, Hop. I retired from the Military serving in combat arms my entire adult life.


It's a point.


If it is precision weapon then we are talking a point, if it is an area effect weapon such as bomb, our aim point becomes an area.


. During World War II, airmen applied the term precision to weapons aimed with the Norden bombsight. In 1943 this definition of precision equated to a circular error probable (CEP) of approximately 1,000 meters, which required more than 1,500 sorties and 9,000 bombs to achieve a single objective.1

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af...pj06/spr06/sine.html (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj06/spr06/sine.html)


And you are still ignoring the graph from the USSBS.

I am trying to see where that table you posted makes the comparison between accuracy of Bomber Command and the USSTAF.

jarink
12-05-2009, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
No, RAF raids actually were more accurate. The reason is the weather was bad over Germany, and the Germans used to create smokescreens to hide the target, so the USAAF frequently had to use the same electronic bombing aids bomber command did. But Bomber Command had been concentrating on electronic bombing aids for years, whereas the USAAF adopted them as an expedient at the last minute, so the RAF was a good deal more accurate with them.
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/7830/usaafbombingaccuracyh2x.jpg

This is from the USSBS, which gave it as an example of the attacks on 3 large German oil plants:
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/9119/usaafbombingaccuracyuss.jpg

Where's the data showing RAF night bombing accuracy using "full instruments" in bad weather? The way I've always understood it, the "Pathfinder technique" was visual bombing of targets that had been marked with flares/incendiaries.

From that chart, it seems the USAAF's daylight raids using their preferred method of visual bombing were nearly twice as accurate (26.8% vs 15.8%) as the RAF's preferred nighttime technique.

How is 15.8% "more accurate" than 26.8%?

The only time the USAAF's accuracy is noticeably poorer is "full instrument", which I'm assuming is using PFF lead ships and the entire formation dropping on their signal.

Kettenhunde
12-05-2009, 01:15 PM
From that chart, it seems the USAAF's daylight raids using their preferred method of visual bombing were nearly twice as accurate (26.8% vs 15.8%) as the RAF's preferred nighttime technique. The only time the USAAF's accuracy is noticeably poorer is "full instrument", which I'm assuming is using PFF lead ships and the entire formation dropping on their signal.

Thank you! That is how I read it. It shows a comparison of different techniques.

My question is still directed towards Hop as to where that conclusion about Bomber Command being more accurate is actually stated in the reports. It appears the comparison between the two organizations is all his own speculation.

Saburo_0
12-05-2009, 02:00 PM
Um I'm late to this but, doesnt it show Pathfinder rate at 15.8 as better than all but pure visual USAAF bombing methods?

And I know the Germans used direction radio beams for bombing, where two beams were positioned to cross over teh target; didn't RAF do something similar?

Kurfurst__
12-05-2009, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
And you are still ignoring the graph from the USSBS. Why? The USSBS chose it as an example. It shows the percentage of bombs hitting within the plant fences. Higher for the RAF.

Well it only depends on what example you take as a demonstration. In the Nurnberg raid, the RAF BC was also facing poor weahter conditions, could barely find the city and German nightfighters did a bloodbath amongst them. It was far worse than the hammering the B17s got in the daylight over Schweinfurt. The goal of the raid was as usual to kill as many citizens down there as possible, but it turned out that the cost was two to four British airman for every civillian killed or injured down there.

See: http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol043lf.html

It all depends which case you try to pick, and then wave about. Looking at the Nurnberg case, night bombing does not look good. Even in 1944, with ground mapping radar etc. they were barely able to find the city, let alone hit anything specific in it other than by accident.

Dance
12-05-2009, 02:30 PM
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 hop2002:
And you are still ignoring the graph from the USSBS. Why? The USSBS chose it as an example. It shows the percentage of bombs hitting within the plant fences. Higher for the RAF.

Well it only depends on what example you take as a demonstration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not an issue when his figures are about percentages not specific missions.

Kurfurst__
12-05-2009, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Dance:
<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 hop2002:
And you are still ignoring the graph from the USSBS. Why? The USSBS chose it as an example. It shows the percentage of bombs hitting within the plant fences. Higher for the RAF.

Well it only depends on what example you take as a demonstration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not an issue when his figures are about percentages not specific missions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is an issue because those percentages refer to a specific series of attacks against a single German industrial target by both the USAAF and the RAF BC.

hop2002
12-05-2009, 02:43 PM
If it is precision weapon then we are talking a point, if it is an area effect weapon such as bomb, our aim point becomes an area.

Only Crumpp could define a "point" as an "area". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bomber Command used aiming points, like the USAAF, in the full knowledge that bombs would fall over the area around the point. But the point was a point, just like it was with the USAAF.


I am trying to see where that table you posted makes the comparison between accuracy of Bomber Command and the USSTAF.

You really can't read the table?


Where's the data showing RAF night bombing accuracy using "full instruments" in bad weather?

In the "RAF, night Pathfinder technique" line. The figure for the RAF is an average, over all the raids.


The way I've always understood it, the "Pathfinder technique" was visual bombing of targets that had been marked with flares/incendiaries.

Yes, but flares are the key word. If there wasn't too much cloud, the RAF would use target markers that burnt on the ground. The bright flares would cut through light cloud better than optics looking at a ground target, of course, but in heavy cloud they'd be invisible. In those cases the RAF would use sky markers, flares that went above the clouds for the bombers to see.


From that chart, it seems the USAAF's daylight raids using their preferred method of visual bombing were nearly twice as accurate (26.8% vs 15.8%) as the RAF's preferred nighttime technique.

How is 15.8% "more accurate" than 26.8%?

You're comparing an RAF average to the USAAF's best.

There are 4 results in that chart. The RAF achieved 15.8%. The USAAF achieved 26.8%, or 12.4% or 5.4%


The only time the USAAF's accuracy is noticeably poorer is "full instrument", which I'm assuming is using PFF lead ships and the entire formation dropping on their signal.

Only as we see from the other chart, that could be most of the time.

If you look at the results from the second chart, the RAF got 15.8% of their bombs within the plant fence. The RAF and USAAF between them got 12.6% of their bombs within the plant fence.

What does that tell you about the USAAF's results? Hint: they had to have been less than 12.6% on average. Without knowing just how many tons each force dropped on these 3 targets we can't say for certain how much less than 12.6%, but considering the spread was roughly 50-50 overall, I'd say the USAAF got roughly 9.5% of their bombs within the plant fences. That's just a guess, though.


It all depends which case you try to pick, and then wave about. Looking at the Nurnberg case, night bombing does not look good.

Well, you can always find examples where things go badly wrong. The 8th AF bombing Switzerland by mistake, for example, or the Luftwaffe bombing Freiburg or Dublin.

But the point about the chart I posted is it's not an example I chose. It's an example the USSBS chose. It's the record of 30,000 tons of bombs dropped on 3 major German oil plants, and if they thought it was worth presenting, then it probably is.

It's also the only concrete example I can find.


Um I'm late to this but, doesnt it show Pathfinder rate at 15.8 as better than all but pure visual USAAF bombing methods?

Yes. The whole point is the RAF's average in this example was better than the combined USAAF and RAF average, which means the USAAF's must be worse. It's direct evidence, chosen by the USSBS, that the RAF was more accurate.

We also have Richard G Davis, official historian of the USAF, who says Bomber Command was more accurate. Of course, certain members of the forum know better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


And I know the Germans used direction radio beams for bombing, where two beams were positioned to cross over teh target; didn't RAF do something similar?

Oboe, Gee and Gee-H

Kettenhunde
12-05-2009, 02:43 PM
And I know the Germans used direction radio beams for bombing, where two beams were positioned to cross over teh target; didn't RAF do something similar?

Everyone used radio navigation during the war to find targets in periods of limited visibility.


Because the bomber is essentially a long-range weapon, there is greater concentration on practice missions, navigation and instrument flying. The pilot learns to find his way despite storms, fog, wind or strange terrain. The radio beam becomes another old friend.

http://wingsofhonor.org/wings.aspx


Um I'm late to this but, doesnt it show Pathfinder rate at 15.8 as better than all but pure visual USAAF bombing methods?

I can see how the confusion developed but what the chart shows is:


From that chart, it seems the USAAF's daylight raids using their preferred method of visual bombing were nearly twice as accurate (26.8% vs 15.8%) as the RAF's preferred nighttime technique. The only time the USAAF's accuracy is noticeably poorer is "full instrument", which I'm assuming is using PFF lead ships and the entire formation dropping on their signal.

The British targeted area cities at night while the USAAF attacked precision targets from high altitude. Completely different missions that require different approaches.


447th BS War Diary: Seven of our ships participated in a raid on the Pontetidone rail
bridge, (K-483175). No bombs were dropped because of weather conditions at the
primary and alternate targets. Pvt Roy H. Bartram was promoted to grade of Cpl and
reclassified from 754 to 757.

Bartram, Roy H., Cpl, gunner



448th BS War Diary: Mission 370 (581): At 1111 twelve (12) planes airborne to bomb
Pontetidone RR Bridge in Italy. Six (6) planes from the 448th participated, flying as the
second box of six. The formation dropped no bombs due to could coverage and returned
all bombs to base. No flak. Weather: Enroute to and over target – clouds beginning at
Italian coast 10/10 stratocumulus with tops at 13,000 feet.


Thursday, 5 October 1944


http://www.warwingsart.com/12thAirForce/3211044.html

It was unusual for the USAAF to drop bombs when the target was obscured.

Here are the conclusions without outside interpretation from a report done specifically to compare the effectiveness of the USAAF approach to Bomber Commands approach:

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/4964/usaafbcaccuracy.jpg (http://img708.imageshack.us/i/usaafbcaccuracy.jpg/)

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4024/usaafbcaccuracy2.jpg (http://img339.imageshack.us/i/usaafbcaccuracy2.jpg/)

It mirrors the conclusions of the USSBS.

Dance
12-05-2009, 02:48 PM
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 Dance:
<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 hop2002:
And you are still ignoring the graph from the USSBS. Why? The USSBS chose it as an example. It shows the percentage of bombs hitting within the plant fences. Higher for the RAF.

Well it only depends on what example you take as a demonstration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not an issue when his figures are about percentages not specific missions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is an issue because those percentages refer to a specific series of attacks against a single German industrial target by both the USAAF and the RAF BC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Originally posted by hop2002:
This is from the USSBS, which gave it as an example of the attacks on 3 large German oil plants:


I must have missed the bit where this was one target, but I stand to be corrected.

Kettenhunde
12-05-2009, 02:48 PM
Only Crumpp could define a "point" as an "area".


No Hop, I just have been in the military.

If we were discussion JDAM's then our point would only be a few meters across.

If we were discussing Sniper rifles, our point is ~1/4 minute of angle or a 1/4 inch at 100 yards.

If we get within that we have scored a hit within the limits of the weapon system.


You're comparing an RAF average to the USAAF's best.

No Hop, you read the chart wrong and because of that have drawn a conclusion that does not exist.

You simply confuse the definition of the target with the ability to hit the target.

Bremspropeller
12-05-2009, 02:51 PM
He's certainly not counting missions, where did this figure of 5,000 come from


It's called "Irony" - you might wanna google it.

Dance
12-05-2009, 02:54 PM
Ooh, can you contribute anything else?

hop2002
12-05-2009, 03:01 PM
You're comparing an RAF average to the USAAF's best.



No Hop, you read the chart wrong and because of that have drawn a conclusion that does not exist.

You simply confuse the definition of the target with the ability to hit the target.

Crumpp, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you tell me how I have read the chart wrong? Can you tell me what you believe it says?

yuuppers
12-05-2009, 05:39 PM
Conventionally the air forces designated as "the target area" a circle having a radius of 1000 feet around the aiming point of attack.

Seems from the above the Americans were area bombing. The Brits bombed between target markers designating the target area with the aiming point the mid point between the markers.

------------------------------


In the Nurnberg raid, the RAF BC was also facing poor weahter conditions, could barely find the city and German nightfighters did a bloodbath amongst them. It was far worse than the hammering the B17s got in the daylight over Schweinfurt.

The Americans sent 291 bombers to Schweinfurt and lost 77 bombers for a 26%loss.

The Brits sent 782 bombers to Nurnburg and lost 106 bombers for a 13.6% loss.

The Americans lost twice the percentage of the British and you say the British were hammered? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

One thing for sure is that the American and British bombing accuracy was better than the Luftwaffe.

Kettenhunde
12-05-2009, 06:19 PM
Crumpp, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you tell me how I have read the chart wrong? Can you tell me what you believe it says?

I think has been spelled out plainly. Let's not get confused and think I'm here to convince you of anything or care if you change your mind.


Where's the data showing RAF night bombing accuracy using "full instruments" in bad weather? The way I've always understood it, the "Pathfinder technique" was visual bombing of targets that had been marked with flares/incendiaries.

From that chart, it seems the USAAF's daylight raids using their preferred method of visual bombing were nearly twice as accurate (26.8% vs 15.8%) as the RAF's preferred nighttime technique.

How is 15.8% "more accurate" than 26.8%?

The only time the USAAF's accuracy is noticeably poorer is "full instrument", which I'm assuming is using PFF lead ships and the entire formation dropping on their signal.



http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...991005018#8991005018 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2611052908?r=8991005018#8991005018)

It is your world so feel free to construct things however you wish.

All the best,

Crumpp

Saburo_0
12-05-2009, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And I know the Germans used direction radio beams for bombing, where two beams were positioned to cross over teh target; didn't RAF do something similar?

Everyone used radio navigation during the war to find targets in periods of limited visibility.


Because the bomber is essentially a long-range weapon, there is greater concentration on practice missions, navigation and instrument flying. The pilot learns to find his way despite storms, fog, wind or strange terrain. The radio beam becomes another old friend.

http://wingsofhonor.org/wings.aspx


Um I'm late to this but, doesnt it show Pathfinder rate at 15.8 as better than all but pure visual USAAF bombing methods?

I can see how the confusion developed but what the chart shows is:


From that chart, it seems the USAAF's daylight raids using their preferred method of visual bombing were nearly twice as accurate (26.8% vs 15.8%) as the RAF's preferred nighttime technique. The only time the USAAF's accuracy is noticeably poorer is "full instrument", which I'm assuming is using PFF lead ships and the entire formation dropping on their signal.
K, well I was thinking of an earlier post which said the Brits were better at the no visibility bombing than the yanks. Seems natural as they were bombing at night the whole time.

The British targeted area cities at night while the USAAF attacked precision targets from high altitude. Completely different missions that require different approaches.


447th BS War Diary: Seven of our ships participated in a raid on the Pontetidone rail
bridge, (K-483175). No bombs were dropped because of weather conditions at the
primary and alternate targets. Pvt Roy H. Bartram was promoted to grade of Cpl and
reclassified from 754 to 757.

Bartram, Roy H., Cpl, gunner



448th BS War Diary: Mission 370 (581): At 1111 twelve (12) planes airborne to bomb
Pontetidone RR Bridge in Italy. Six (6) planes from the 448th participated, flying as the
second box of six. The formation dropped no bombs due to could coverage and returned
all bombs to base. No flak. Weather: Enroute to and over target – clouds beginning at
Italian coast 10/10 stratocumulus with tops at 13,000 feet.


Thursday, 5 October 1944

K. but sending a bunch of planes out and then flying them home with bombs on border could be called ineffective (tho moral?)
http://www.warwingsart.com/12thAirForce/3211044.html

It was unusual for the USAAF to drop bombs when the target was obscured.

Here are the conclusions without outside interpretation from a report done specifically to compare the effectiveness of the USAAF approach to Bomber Commands approach:

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/4964/usaafbcaccuracy.jpg (http://img708.imageshack.us/i/usaafbcaccuracy.jpg/)

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4024/usaafbcaccuracy2.jpg (http://img339.imageshack.us/i/usaafbcaccuracy2.jpg/)

It mirrors the conclusions of the USSBS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But if targets were obscured 1/2 the time... as pointed out the RAF BC average might have beat the USAAF 8th ave. ?
I dont have a pony in this race btw. Except that in hindsight, bombing the shizen out of railways would have done more to win the war and killed fewer civilians to boot. The whole bombers can alone win the war non sense didn't work til Kosovo and Gulf war. And kinda lost steam after that.

HellToupee
12-05-2009, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Saburo_0:
But if targets were obscured 1/2 the time... as pointed out the RAF BC average might have beat the USAAF 8th ave. ?
I dont have a pony in this race btw. Except that in hindsight, bombing the shizen out of railways would have done more to win the war and killed fewer civilians to boot. The whole bombers can alone win the war non sense didn't work til Kosovo and Gulf war. And kinda lost steam after that.

Depends on what date the report was written, looking at the wording it looks no later than 1942 trying to estimate future bombing effectiveness.

Pathfinders were not even in use then.

jarink
12-05-2009, 10:18 PM
Well, what start out as a nice discussion has (as usual) degenerated into a "You're wrong!" - "No, you're wrong!" shouting match. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

When's the last time "B-17" or "Mosquito" has been mentioned in this thread?

HellToupee
12-05-2009, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by jarink
When's the last time "B-17" or "Mosquito" has been mentioned in this thread?

^ right there

BillSwagger
12-05-2009, 11:54 PM
Aside from arguing about bombing accuracy, both campaigns were needed to keep a constant influx on the German defense.

They did something similar in Japan, flying forts in the day and fighter bombers at night. It doesn't take long to wear down a strong hold with that kind of strategy.

I still don't think you could replace the heavy forts with the Mossy for the simple fact that the heavies could carry more bombs at higher altitudes and for further distances, which was a necessary for a day light campaign. Mossies might carry the same loads, but not at the same heights which made them more vulnerable to flak and interception.

HellToupee
12-06-2009, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Aside from arguing about bombing accuracy, both campaigns were needed to keep a constant influx on the German defense.

They did something similar in Japan, flying forts in the day and fighter bombers at night. It doesn't take long to wear down a strong hold with that kind of strategy.

I still don't think you could replace the heavy forts with the Mossy for the simple fact that the heavies could carry more bombs at higher altitudes and for further distances, which was a necessary for a day light campaign. Mossies might carry the same loads, but not at the same heights which made them more vulnerable to flak and interception.

They could carry their loads at the same heights, someone even posted an example of mossies bombing from over 30k ft.

The b.XVI was even pressurized.

BillSwagger
12-06-2009, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
They could carry their loads at the same heights, someone even posted an example of mossies bombing from over 30k ft.

The b.XVI was even pressurized.

sorry if i missed that.
can you point that out to me, i was unable to find it.

I'm seeiing figures where the B-17 carried 10x500 or even as much as 12x500 (5000-6000lbs) of bombs at 28k ft.
I'd be interested in reading more about the Mossie and its ability to carry those bomb loads at those heights, to Berlin and back.
My resources are very limitted, or at least don't mention the Mossie missions where they carried these loads. If you have more info, please share.


thanks


Bill

mhuxt
12-06-2009, 03:36 AM
The most commprehensive Mosquito book is "Mosquito" by Sharp & Bowyer. A fellow called Bill Blunt also did some excellent squadron histories for the Mossies of 8 Group, though copies are as rare as hen's teeth.

Davies' work indicates that the majority (57%) of tonnage dropped on Germany by the 8th AF was dropped using methods other than visual.

The BC aiming point was a point, bomb pictures (including from the markers) were plotted around the aiming point. A number of the resulting maps are available in Frankland & Webster.

HellToupee
12-06-2009, 03:42 AM
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 HellToupee:
They could carry their loads at the same heights, someone even posted an example of mossies bombing from over 30k ft.

The b.XVI was even pressurized.

sorry if i missed that.
can you point that out to me, i was unable to find it.

I'm seeiing figures where the B-17 carried 10x500 or even as much as 12x500 (5000-6000lbs) of bombs at 28k ft.
I'd be interested in reading more about the Mossie and its ability to carry those bomb loads at those heights, to Berlin and back.
My resources are very limitted, or at least don't mention the Mossie missions where they carried these loads. If you have more info, please share.


thanks


Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop posted a document with 31,000ft as operational ceiling of a loaded mosquito.

yuuppers
12-06-2009, 04:14 AM
How would the Germans counter masses of Mossies coming at them from all angles and altitudes 24/7?

hop2002
12-06-2009, 04:18 AM
I think has been spelled out plainly.


Sorry Crumpp. The table is what it is. It's a table showing the accuracy achieved by the RAF and 8th AF in attacks on 3 large German oil plants. It shows that the RAF managed to hit with a higher percentage of their bombs than the 8th AF did. As such it's what you asked for:


Do you have facts showing RAF BC was more accurate at hitting a precision target


The British targeted area cities at night while the USAAF attacked precision targets from high altitude. Completely different missions that require different approaches.

Only the USAAF also conducted massed area bombing of cities and the RAF also conducted precision strikes.


447th BS War Diary: Seven of our ships participated in a raid on the Pontetidone rail
bridge, (K-483175). No bombs were dropped because of weather conditions at the
primary and alternate targets. Pvt Roy H. Bartram was promoted to grade of Cpl and
reclassified from 754 to 757.

Bartram, Roy H., Cpl, gunner



448th BS War Diary: Mission 370 (581): At 1111 twelve (12) planes airborne to bomb
Pontetidone RR Bridge in Italy. Six (6) planes from the 448th participated, flying as the
second box of six. The formation dropped no bombs due to could coverage and returned
all bombs to base. No flak. Weather: Enroute to and over target – clouds beginning at
Italian coast 10/10 stratocumulus with tops at 13,000 feet.


Thursday, 5 October 1944



http://www.warwingsart.com/12thAirForce/3211044.html

It was unusual for the USAAF to drop bombs when the target was obscured.

Crumpp, both extracts are from Italy. The USAAF didn't use radar bombing to anything like the same extent in the Med, and rarely carried out area attacks on cities.

As we've seen from the first table, the 8th AF late in the war carried out more than half its bombing using radar through cloud.


Here are the conclusions without outside interpretation from a report done specifically to compare the effectiveness of the USAAF approach to Bomber Commands approach:
http://img708.imageshack.us/i/usaafbcaccuracy.jpg
http://img339.imageshack.us/i/usaafbcaccuracy2.jpg

Have you actually read it? It's about something written by Spaatz before September 1942.


by September 1942 the 8th AF would drop 1,740 tons

Actual tonnage by the USAAF in the ETO in September 1942 was 215 tons.


by February 1943 the 8th AF tonnage would be increased to approx 12,048 tons

Actual tonnage in Feb 1943 = 705

Far from Spaatz's prediction the 8th would overtake BC in tonnage by Feb 1943, in the whole of 1943 the USAAF in Europe dropped 55,655 short tons, BC 176,352 short tons.

Spaatz might have made optimistic predictions, but in late summer 1943 the 8th AF got their first H2S radars and immediately began area bombing German cities. They were reluctant to admit it, and often hid their area bombing under the term "marshalling yards", but it was still area bombing.

The realities of operations in Europe caught up to them.

BillSwagger
12-06-2009, 04:33 AM
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 BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
They could carry their loads at the same heights, someone even posted an example of mossies bombing from over 30k ft.

The b.XVI was even pressurized.

sorry if i missed that.
can you point that out to me, i was unable to find it.

I'm seeiing figures where the B-17 carried 10x500 or even as much as 12x500 (5000-6000lbs) of bombs at 28k ft.
I'd be interested in reading more about the Mossie and its ability to carry those bomb loads at those heights, to Berlin and back.
My resources are very limitted, or at least don't mention the Mossie missions where they carried these loads. If you have more info, please share.


thanks


Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop posted a document with 31,000ft as operational ceiling of a loaded mosquito. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

again, where is this document? im having a hard time finding it

What is the weight of the bomb load for opperating at 31k ft?
and what is the range (distance) at 31,000ft if carrying 6000lbs in bombs?



Bill

HellToupee
12-06-2009, 04:40 AM
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 HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 HellToupee:
They could carry their loads at the same heights, someone even posted an example of mossies bombing from over 30k ft.

The b.XVI was even pressurized.

sorry if i missed that.
can you point that out to me, i was unable to find it.

I'm seeiing figures where the B-17 carried 10x500 or even as much as 12x500 (5000-6000lbs) of bombs at 28k ft.
I'd be interested in reading more about the Mossie and its ability to carry those bomb loads at those heights, to Berlin and back.
My resources are very limitted, or at least don't mention the Mossie missions where they carried these loads. If you have more info, please share.


thanks


Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop posted a document with 31,000ft as operational ceiling of a loaded mosquito. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

again, where is this document? im having a hard time finding it

What is the weight of the bomb load for opperating at 31k ft?
and what is the range (distance) at 31,000ft if carrying 6000lbs in bombs?



Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img192.imageshack.us/im...ruisespeedsharpb.jpg (http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/6438/mossiecruisespeedsharpb.jpg)

Posted only 2 pages back.

If anything range is further at 30,000ft than lower if you look at the ampg.

Kettenhunde
12-06-2009, 06:16 AM
Just to nip the fictions....

The pages come from a USAF history on the development of the Heavy Bomber. This document was used to forge United States Strategic bomber doctrine.

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/3139/developmentofhvybomber.jpg (http://img41.imageshack.us/i/developmentofhvybomber.jpg/)


The only comparison of Bomber Command and the USSTAF are shown. There is no interpretation needed or required. The document say what they say without detective work.

The only documents that specifically compare Bomber Command to the USSTAF I have seen are this one and the USSBS which mirrors these conclusions.

People tend to miss the details when they create these fictions and paint the picture they wish to present. That picture is usually one of their own design with little basis in reality.

For example, a tiny word can completely change the meaning and alter the conclusions to support the fiction:


by September 1942 the 8th AF would drop 1,740 tons

Is a factual statement from the report. It has been altered into a piece of fiction leading to erroneous interpretation because of a missed detail in one single word...


Actual tonnage by the USAAF in the ETO in September 1942 was 215 tons.

hop2002
12-06-2009, 06:35 AM
Crumpp, the exact passage you quoted:


He gave tentative figures of the bomb tonnages of both air forces which showed that by September 1942 the Eighth Air Force would drop 1740 tons compared with 6,009 tons by the British. But, by February 1943, the Eighth Air Force tonnage would be increased to approximately 12,048 tons against 9,805 tons of the RAF Bomber Command

Are you really suggesting that these were cumulative totals? Really?

That by September 1942 BC would have dropped a grand total of 6,009 tons? That over the next 5 months they would drop another 2,800 tons?

Is that what you're suggesting?

Bomber Command's cumulative total was actually 81,383 tons by September 1942. By February 1943 it was 105,633 tons.

Your suggestion Spaatz was talking about cumulative totals is bizarre. He was talking about monthly tonnages.

He was not far off with his Bomber Command figures. He predicted 6,009 tons in September, it was actually 5,595 tons. He predicted 9,805 tons in February 1943, it was actually 9,959 tons.

Bremspropeller
12-06-2009, 06:52 AM
How would the Germans counter masses of Mossies coming at them from all angles and altitudes 24/7?

How could the Brits bring up those "masses" of Mossies 24/7?

yuuppers
12-06-2009, 10:06 AM
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t143.htm

Aug - Dec the USAAF only dropped 1713 tons of bombs in the ETO.

JtD
12-06-2009, 10:18 AM
1942.

BillSwagger
12-06-2009, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:

http://img192.imageshack.us/im...ruisespeedsharpb.jpg (http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/6438/mossiecruisespeedsharpb.jpg)

Posted only 2 pages back.

If anything range is further at 30,000ft than lower if you look at the ampg.


thanks. i knew i saw this one somewhere before.

It gives figures on "(clean configuration}" at max cruise, and eco cruise, but it says nothing of bomber load and range.
It mentions time to climb, and operational ceiling for a loaded (loaded with what?) bomber was 30kft.

It seems they get better mileage up high, but carrying a bomb load implies they need to climb to those heights which can also consume more fuel than cruising speeds.

This seems like a start, but unless we are assuming, nothing can be said about fully loaded bombers and their ranges flying up to 30k ft based on this information.

Also, could the Mossy carry more than 4000lbs? B-17s were cappable of carrying much heavier loads than that at the heights mentioned.

Bill

BillSwagger
12-06-2009, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Crumpp, the exact passage you quoted:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He gave tentative figures of the bomb tonnages of both air forces which showed that by September 1942 the Eighth Air Force would drop 1740 tons compared with 6,009 tons by the British. But, by February 1943, the Eighth Air Force tonnage would be increased to approximately 12,048 tons against 9,805 tons of the RAF Bomber Command
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think bomb tonnage is good information, but i don't see as particularly useful to the comparison. You look at the total bomb tonnage dropped by P-47s its some where around 132,000 tons. This doesn't imply accuracy, because dive bombing was less accurate than level bombing, or at least a level bombing run was more likely to hit its target it one pass, where three or four dive bombers might do several passes to finally get the target.

Bill

Dynamo_Hum
12-06-2009, 02:07 PM
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 HellToupee:

http://img192.imageshack.us/im...ruisespeedsharpb.jpg (http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/6438/mossiecruisespeedsharpb.jpg)

Posted only 2 pages back.

If anything range is further at 30,000ft than lower if you look at the ampg.


thanks. i knew i saw this one somewhere before.

It gives figures on "(clean configuration}" at max cruise, and eco cruise, but it says nothing of bomber load and range.
It mentions time to climb, and operational ceiling for a loaded (loaded with what?) bomber was 30kft.

It seems they get better mileage up high, but carrying a bomb load implies they need to climb to those heights which can also consume more fuel than cruising speeds.

This seems like a start, but unless we are assuming, nothing can be said about fully loaded bombers and their ranges flying up to 30k ft based on this information.

Also, could the Mossy carry more than 4000lbs? B-17s were cappable of carrying much heavier loads than that at the heights mentioned.

Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


USAAF posessed and used Mosquitos.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.m...actsheet.asp?id=3365 (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3365)

In the case of most any aircraft the load
will adversly effect speed and range.
Simply said nothing is for free. There is no magic in lift to drag coeffecient.
That said the maximum bomb load out stated for the B-17
is the late B-17F and early B-17G that could carry an astounding
20,800 lbs of bombs at short range with external bombs.
Both aircraft also show an max internal loadout of 17,900 lbs.
Having been in a 100% restored B-17G I can't see where in heck they put it!
One thing the B-17 did better than any bomber over Europe was to cause massive attrition
to the Luftwaffe. Yes that was a major part of the tactic.
I have no doubt that the bomber gunners over claimed. I doubt the Generals
were unaware of it. The breaking of the Enigma code was the link and leak they needed.
They knew the Luftwaffe was getting mauled by the bombers.
The Mosquito could contribute little to that when configured as a bomber.
If you want a fighter bomber argument building 30,000+ P-51s would have been
far more damaging. Perhaps long range P-47s. With a bomb load of 2,000 lbs each
and being an excellent fighter after the bombs were dropped it could have been more efficent than
either the Mossie or the B-17

Dynamo_Hum

Kettenhunde
12-06-2009, 02:23 PM
i don't see as particularly useful to the comparison.


It not part of the comparison in the report either. It is just projected figures from Gen. Spaatz report on the tempo of bombing operations.

The comparison of effectiveness between Bomber Commands area bombing of cities and USSTAF high altitude precision daylight bombing results are already given.

Daiichidoku
12-06-2009, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Dynamo_Hum:
...

why do you continue to return here when you know you are banned SgtSlaughter/Sergio/whatever-your-alias-is-this week?

jarink
12-06-2009, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Dynamo_Hum:
That said the maximum bomb load out stated for the B-17
is the late B-17F and early B-17G that could carry an astounding
20,800 lbs of bombs at short range with external bombs.
Both aircraft also show an max internal loadout of 17,900 lbs.
Having been in a 100% restored B-17G I can't see where in heck they put it!

This is from the B-17F Erection and Maintenance Manual:
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c1/jarink/B17F_Bombrackage.jpg
With a full load of 1600lb bombs, the internal bomb load works out to 12,800 pounds. It also shows that the max load using 500 or 1000lb-ers would be 6000lb. These are limitations of the amount or racks, not lifting capability. I don't have anything handy (like an E&M manual) for the G with this same sort of illustration, so I'm not sure how to account for the difference of 5,100 pounds.