PDA

View Full Version : Is the Mosquito 6 too slow?



Ed6269
11-05-2008, 01:17 PM
I downloaded a single mission for Mossie 6: a low altitude raid on the French coast,and found that the BF 109 caught me easily. This, at low altitude, with me flying a well-trimmed craft at maximum power, even allowing ai to try to eke some extra speed. The 109s ran me down like a foolish clown. I thought Mossie was fastest down low, and only jets caught them. Thanks.

Dustysquareback
11-05-2008, 01:31 PM
The various ways in which the dear old Mossie excelled and dominated are really not well represented in the sim. Largely because a lot of it's benefits don't translate well to the sim world, things like production, ease of modification, things like that.

During some parts of the war, the various models of Mossies were AS fast as the newest fighters, but never really faster. And it's speed advantage was better at higher alts (as it is in the game)

Just being as fast as a fighter, or even close, makes you VERY hard to intercpet. Climb up to alt, get going a good clip, and the fighters have to climb up, and THEN catch you. Not easy at all. If you see a bogey in a Mossie headed the opposite direction of you, floor it and trim it and you'll likely get away. But if they have an alt advantage, you are toast.

The mossie is like an American cop car. Long distance runner. You won't win any sprints, but you can carry some stuff that goes bang looong and fast the whole time. Those Merlin engines are tuned to be run hard forever. Get fast,and up into the cool air and you can run full throttle all day long.

Also, d/l the new Mossie the modders made, if you can. F'ing ROCKS.

gdfo
11-05-2008, 02:33 PM
Yes Ed, The Mosquito is quite undermodeled as are some other planes.

VW-IceFire
11-05-2008, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by gdfo:
Yes Ed, The Mosquito is quite undermodeled as are some other planes.
Actually its really not undermodeled as Dusty (the post above yours) fairly clearly outlines.

The models we have are pretty close to what the performance numbers are. We could stand to have some later versions with more powerful engines, props, and so forth. But against its same year of opposition its similar in speed.

We have to ask Ed what model of 109 chased him down and if it was from a dive or what the specific circumstances are. As Dusty points out, the Mossie was fast yes...but only about as fast as contemporary fighters rather than being so much faster as to outstrip them easily. Its a long distance runner rather than just a short little sprint - in aviation terms.

The reason the Mossie was "so fast" was a high cruising speed (particularly at high altitudes) and the wood design absorbed radar beams making Mossie raids hard to spot until they were much closer to the radar system. So the consequence of this is that the Mossies would already be much closer to their target, traveling faster than a conventional bomber, at a high altitude. So they would be in and out while the fighters (or nigh-fighters) were still in the process of being scrambled onto target.

We all lament the lack of a rocket equipped 1944 model of the Mosquito...that'd be nice to have. But undermodeled. No. Not really.

ImpStarDuece
11-05-2008, 02:59 PM
Actually, the current Mossie is probably about 5-8 mph to fast at low level, given the way it is modeled with saxophone exhausts.

A version without the ducted exhausts and with multi ejector stubs would be anything from 5-12 mph faster at low levels.

Never the less, given an EQUAL stern chase, you should of been able to out run a 109F reasonably easily, as you have about 10 mph on him at sea level. I've outrun 109Gs with the Mossie, both online and off, using some careful management of the radiators, prop pitch and WEP.

The problem is that the AI manages it engine perfectly, meaning it will have better acceleration and cooling than you, and will be able to chase faster for longer than a human pilot.

The 109s may have also started faster than you, or started with an alt advantage. No matter how fast the Mossie at low level, you can't beat physics.

The best altitude for the Mosquito to cruise is actually about 7,000 feet. When you see an opponent closing, firewall the throttles and go into a shallow dive to escape.

The only problem with the Mosquito is the buffeting at speeds above about 380 mph and likelyhood of breakup above 400 mph, severely limiting your max diving speed, something my reading leads me to believe that the real one was not prone to.

Buzzsaw-
11-05-2008, 03:25 PM
Salute

Too slow for a 1942 model? Probably not.

Too slow for a 1944 or 1945 model? Definitely.

If you are not matched up against a 1942 or early 1943 German planeset, you are going to have a tough time.

There is a 1944 Mosquito, (bomber) available through the 'Mods', but none in the standard game.

HayateAce
11-05-2008, 03:33 PM
The handling and roll rate are much more questionable than the speed.

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

Bremspropeller
11-05-2008, 03:35 PM
Agree, she feels like a pregnant duck after take-off.

Mr_Zooly
11-05-2008, 04:17 PM
how can you tell if a plane is over/undermodelled? I have never had the luck to fly a warbird but even if I had it wouldnt be the same as in war you dont really care about pushing limits in wartime but a 50+ year old aircraft cant really be pushed to its very limits.
Just my lowly viewpoint.

JG53Frankyboy
11-05-2008, 04:43 PM
IIRC -> http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6301075836/p/1

the speed is for a 1943 Mosquito FB.Mk.VI ok.

WTE_Galway
11-05-2008, 04:50 PM
The Mossie's reputation comes from the fact that its speed at altitude (proper altitude 30,000 feet plus - not IL2 game "high altitude") meant by the time interceptors got up there it had already buggered off home. It was in fact often very slightly slower than its single engined contemporaries but sufficiently fast to be long gone before anything could get up to altitude and chase it.

Somewhere along the line a myth has developed that it was this insanely quick speedster that could just fly away from a dogfight when intercepted. That simply isn't true.

Also note that figures for some of the extremely fast late war models were often unarmed photo recon birds.

Aaron_GT
11-05-2008, 05:49 PM
The later bomber versions (e.g B.XVI) at higher altitudes (e.g. over 20,000 feet) were a little faster than the Fw190A8 even when loaded. Granted the margin loaded was only about 0-5mph (depends on versions of both, engines, bulged bay or not, etc, exact altitude), so fit and finish for a Mosquito might eliminate it. Unloaded the Mosquito only gained about 10mph as it had a small speed loss loaded *. This is with drop tanks. The B.IV unloaded was a bit slower, mainly due to engines.

* The Mosquito had sufficient lift and power capacity for a bombload of 8000lb but there was no way to load that weight of bombs into it, nor near enough to the CofG to not cause stability problems. Even the 4000lb Cookie adversely affected stability, but then in terms of stability it was designed for 1000lb and no external fuel tanks. 2000lb plus fuel was ok for stability, but 4000lbs was an issue. Some Mosquitos were also carrying a lot of extra navigational equipment to the extent it was hard to fit it in and power it all.

The Mosquito had a low loss rate at high altitude and on average but under 20,000 feet it was vulnerable to the Fw190A and had a loss rate at or above average for an RAF bomber.

gdfo
11-05-2008, 07:11 PM
The Mosquito like other planes in the game are under modeled, like I stated earlier.

WTE_Galway
11-05-2008, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by gdfo:
The Mosquito like other planes in the game are under modeled, like I stated earlier.

Are we talking under-modelled against the real thing ?

Or under-modelled against Hollywood movies, urban myths and the way it flies in other flight sims ?

It's not useful just to just repeats its "undermodelled" if you have evidence post it so we can discuss it or learn from it.

M_Gunz
11-06-2008, 12:13 AM
If they seem to handle a bit different than a single engine fighter then consider that you are
in one seat of a tandem seat cockpit and not looking down your roll axis. The fuselage is two
people wide and loaded, it's not gonna fly like a Spitfire. And the Spitfire will never bomb
like a Mossie so that evens things up!

mhuxt
11-06-2008, 02:46 AM
The Mosquito had a low loss rate at high altitude and on average but under 20,000 feet it was vulnerable to the Fw190A and had a loss rate at or above average for an RAF bomber.

In actual fact, the daylight bomber losses were significantly lower on low-level raids than on high-level sorties.

At night, the LNSF (high-level) raids generally ran at loss rates (from all causes) of less than 1%, however the only Mosquito squadron to be used at low-level (627 Squadron of 5 Group) had losses of about 1.5% (from memory).

None of those squadrons however used FB.VIs (617 Squadron had 3 on strength at some point). 2nd TAF used the FB.VI during both daylight and night at a loss rate (again from memory) of around 1.4%.

WOLFMondo
11-06-2008, 09:20 AM
I don't think its undermodeled at all, other than the point where the airframe breaks up at high speed which is dodgy to say the least. As said previously, its strengths as a plane don't work well in a simulator.

It could get in and out of its target with incredible speed, by the time interceptors were on hand they Mosquito's were long gone and would take a full tank of petrol to chase down if the interceptor gets the right vector onto them. That doesn't translate well into a simulator.

FYI 2nd TAF Mosquito's performing ground attack were often escorted by Spitfire IX's and the only real threat to them at that point was the ever present flak.

Maybe if we had a couple of the hotrod night fighter versions or the boosted V1 chasers it might give a more rounded and fairer representation of this aircraft.

Xiolablu3
11-06-2008, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I don't think its undermodeled at all, other than the point where the airframe breaks up at high speed which is dodgy to say the least.


Absolutely.


Also, It was hard to intercept by being used sensibly, not by being some super hot-rod which could outrun any single engined fighter. Although it WAS super fast for a bomber.

By the time the fighters had got airbourne and were ready to give chase, the Mossie's were usually racing back home, and a 10-20mph advantage for the single engined fighter just isnt enough to catch it when the Mossie is 100-200 miles away.

However any top end 1943-45 single enigned German fighter diving from altitude onto a lower Mosquito which had been spotted would catch it.

Its all about tactics.

Its impossible to replicate the situations where the Mosquito shone on an Il2 dogfight server, as everyone knows where the enemy targets are and can just hang around above and dive on the Mosquitos.

Even a Hurricane can catch a Bf109 if it has a good enough altitude advanatage to dive from. Regardless of top speeds in level flight.

Kurfurst__
11-06-2008, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The later bomber versions (e.g B.XVI) at higher altitudes (e.g. over 20,000 feet) were a little faster than the Fw190A8 even when loaded. Granted the margin loaded was only about 0-5mph (depends on versions of both, engines, bulged bay or not, etc, exact altitude), so fit and finish for a Mosquito might eliminate it. Unloaded the Mosquito only gained about 10mph as it had a small speed loss loaded *. This is with drop tanks. The B.IV unloaded was a bit slower, mainly due to engines.

IMHO comparing top speeds at limited duration (ie. five minute 'Combat') has little meaning. The typical bomber profile was cruising at far lower airspeeds to conserve fuel, reduce the chance of an engine failure, after climbing to high altitude - say 2-300 mph. From that onwards it was more of a matter of how good radar operators were on the other side, how fast and precisly the interceptors were vectored onto the target; time was essential as the interceptor had also have to climb up to altitude. In many cases interceptors were either not vectored in precisely to the target, scrambled too late, or simply failed to spot a single enemy plane in the airspace - a task much harder than to spot a formation. *IF* contact was made, success depended on wheater the it was the bomber crew spotting the interceptor in due time to even attempt to do anything before being woken by cannon rounds shredding the airframe to pieces.

Again the outcome of combat was more of a question of tactics and manoeuvre, for example finding a good cloud cover or well executed evasive manoeuvres to loose the contact with the interceptor; frankly I doubt that in real life, extended periods of level outrun-attempts were made; not only it was risky, presented the fighter with an easy target, but also it would mean that the bomber, having run for some time at high power settings with excessive fuel consumption would make it back to base before running out of fuel at all, even if it had survived contact with enemy fighters.

Aaron_GT
11-06-2008, 12:45 PM
IMHO comparing top speeds at limited duration (ie. five minute 'Combat') has little meaning.

Whilst mostly the bombers would be at cruise speed:

1. Mosquito cruise speed was very good
2. If a fighter gives chase then the bomber is likely to increase speed, not remain at cruise.

So ultimately maximum 5 minute speed can make a cruicial difference as 5 minutes at max speed might be all that is required to defeat interception. Where this wouldn't hold is if there are repeated interception attempts.


*IF* contact was made, success depended on wheater the it was the bomber crew spotting the interceptor in due time to even attempt to do anything before being woken by cannon rounds shredding the airframe to pieces.

If in daylight in good weather that would be less of a problem. In poor weather than the last part of interception would be more difficult. Unseen bounces were the big killers in WW2 but mostly that is predicated on the bouncer having superior altitude which is less the case with high altitude bombers, hence the work in Germany on higher altitude fighters and on increasing the altitude of the Mosquito. The former didn't really materialise so the latter wasn't pushed - loss rates at high altitude for Mosquitos were under 1% so the added expense of pushing the envelope up 3000 or 4000ft wasn't worth it.


frankly I doubt that in real life, extended periods of level outrun-attempts were made

There are reports of this being used by Mosquitos, or a combination with a very shallow dive.


having run for some time at high power settings with excessive fuel consumption would make it back to base before running out of fuel at all

That assumes no evasion margin in fuel allocation was added in. Given uncertainties with winds and the fact that often a margin for continuation to a secondary target was built in it seems unlikely that 5 minutes at WEP would be a huge issue.

I would heartily agree, though, that factors such as radar, vectoring, etc are hugely important. But still it sees that fast bombers generally had much lower loss rates than slower ones, so speed counts for a lot. The same goes for German as well as Allied bombers.

arjisme
11-06-2008, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by gdfo:
The Mosquito like other planes in the game are under modeled, like I stated earlier. Well that settles that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

fabianfred
11-06-2008, 02:43 PM
We are, as usual, at the mercy of the all-seeing, perfect AI http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

ImpStarDuece
11-06-2008, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

IMHO comparing top speeds at limited duration (ie. five minute 'Combat') has little meaning. The typical bomber profile was cruising at far lower airspeeds to conserve fuel, reduce the chance of an engine failure, after climbing to high altitude - say 2-300 mph.

Early Mosquito B VIs fast cruised at about 295-335 mph (depending on altitude), and range cruised at about 265-285 mph.

Later B MK IX/XVIs fast cruised at about 365-380 mph, and could range cruise at 330 mph at 30,000 feet.

Xiolablu3
11-06-2008, 05:53 PM
It shows how hard it was for the German fighters to intercept the Mosquitos..

Adolf Gallands explains in his Auto-Biography - 'The First and the Last' :-

" A special chapter was the fight against the Mosquito.

England had developed an all purpose aircraft with extraordinary performance whose action over Germany caused a lot of trouble. The twin engined De Havilland Mosquito had a speed which none of our fighter planes could approach..... It performed daylight Reconaissance and bombing missions, and was also very successful, at litle cost, at nuscense raids at night. It had a very precison bombsight called 'Oboe'.

Until the Me262 jet we were virtually powerless against the Mosquitos.. Like their namesake they became a plague to our hig command and the population. Our fighters could only catch them when they dived on them from a much greater height, this manouvre could only be performed if the aircraft was detected soon enough and it could be passed from one radar station to another....

In the daytime they flew without losses and went where-ever their mission took them, at night they chased the population out of their beds. The populace who were justifyably annoyed began to grumble 'The fat one cant even cope with a few Mosquitos'.

Two strengthened flights were formed especially for this purpose [of killing Mosquitos]. The aircraft were 'souped up' by all sorts of tricks, special forms of attack were worked out. But to no avial. As far as I know no neither of these units ever shot down a Mosquito! They were disolved in Autumn 1943."

skarden
11-07-2008, 12:57 AM
wow very interesting,cheers for that Xiolablu,I knew that the mossies where fast but i never realised that they were that fast and that troublesome to the germans,a hell of a plane by the sounds of it.The AAA mosies feels more like that to me,although it's a much later mk so thats to be expected I suppose.

WTE_Galway
11-07-2008, 01:07 AM
The mosquito was an extraordinary nuisance to the Germans, not just as a bomber but also as a photo recon bird.

Of course the real problem in IL2 is that incompetent gamers using poor tactics cannot actually reproduce the historical results.

I doubt the best solution to the issue is hacking the FM to give the Mossie insane speed though.

BGs_Ricky
11-07-2008, 01:54 AM
The speed of the Mosquito was a real advantage a high alt, as already said, due to the fact that it was usually detected late and german fighters had to climb to altitude and then give chase, which was usually unsuccessfull.
The low-alt operations by Mosquito bombers and fighter-bombers relied on surprise, coming in and fast and low and expecting to leave the scene before enemy fighters can reach the area.
Sending a force of unescorted Mosquitos on a target where enemy CAPs are waiting for you at higher alt would not be a good idea, even in real life.
Coastal Command Mosquitos operating off Norway in late '44-'45 needed escort by RAF Mustang when opposition by the Luftwaffe became stronger. They couldn't just rely on their speed if bounced by enemy fighters.

In a crowded server where you are nearly sure that you'll be intercepted it's clear that the speed of the Mossie won't help you much to escape enemy fighters if you just fly towards them and they can bounce you. As said by others, I think that in this game online it is difficult to find the right operational conditions where the Mosquito can show it's true potential.

Kurfurst__
11-07-2008, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It shows how hard it was for the German fighters to intercept the Mosquitos..

Adolf Gallands explains in his Auto-Biography - 'The First and the Last' :-

" A special chapter was the fight against the Mosquito.

England had developed an all purpose aircraft with extraordinary performance whose action over Germany caused a lot of trouble. The twin engined De Havilland Mosquito had a speed which none of our fighter planes could approach.....

... and the view from the other side:

http://www.kurfurst.org/Misc/Interception_MosquitoXVI.jpg


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It performed daylight Reconaissance and bombing missions, and was also very successful, at litle cost, at nuscense raids at night. It had a very precison bombsight called 'Oboe'.

Hmmm, Oboe was a navigational aid, very much like the German's own radio navigational systems that were used over England in 1940, not a bomb sight...


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Until the Me262 jet we were virtually powerless against the Mosquitos.. Like their namesake they became a plague to our hig command and the population. Our fighters could only catch them when they dived on them from a much greater height, this manouvre could only be performed if the aircraft was detected soon enough and it could be passed from one radar station to another....

In the daytime they flew without losses and went where-ever their mission took them, at night they chased the population out of their beds. The populace who were justifyably annoyed began to grumble 'The fat one cant even cope with a few Mosquitos'.

... and the reality of Mosquito daylight operations:


... Operationas started on 31 May, 1942, when four Mosquitos followed up the first "1,000-bomber raid" on Cologne with a daylight attack. One of the raiders was shot down by flak but altough details of the Mosquito were now clearlz apparant to the Luftwaffe, the aircraft was still a closely guarded secret in Britain, and in June one British newspaper was reprimended for referring to the existance of the Mosquito. Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe was taking the measure of the new British bomber. Just as the Hawker Typhoon was to counter the Me 410 on daylight raids, so the new Fw 190 began to to exact an increasing toll on Mosquitos, which lacked any speed of margin over the German aircraft. Losses on early raids avaraged 16 percent of all sorties flown*, leading to some improvised measures aimed at increasing the speed of the Mosquito. Exhaust shrouds were removed, trading stealth for speed; other detail changes were tried, but only the removal of the exhaust shrouds was found to produce a worthwhile improvement. An additional modification was the installation of a rear-view blister in the canopy roof.

These modifications started to take effect after the 26 September, 1942 raid on the Gestapo headquarters in Oslo, in which one of four Mosquitos was lost to defending Fw 190s. Evaluation was greatly assisted by the RAF's acquisition of an Fw 190 in July. [...] It was found that height was the Mosquito's ally, increasing its speed advantage. Increasingly, the Mosquitos were used at higher altitudes over well defended targets in daylight. [...]

High-level raids, however, ruled out the sort of accurarcy needed for attacks on "pinpoint" targets in occupied cities, and the hazardous low-level attacks continued. Better training and planning, occupying two weeks at least before the date of the raid, helped to reduce losses to some extent, but the loss rate remained high. By the end of November, 24 Mosquitos had been lost out of 282 sorties flown; a loss rate of 8 per cent compared with a current rate of 5 per cent among the slow, turret-studded night bombers. [...]

The losses fell gradually, however, and the Mosquitos' ability to bite the Luftwaffe eagle's tail and survive was excellent propaganda. A Nazi rally in Berlin addressed by Ging and Goebbels was effectively disrupted by a Mosquito raid on 30 January, 1943; only one of the raiders was caught by the defences. [...] By the end of March, the Mosquitos had dropped a total of 2,000 tons of bombs, with a 7.5 per cent missing rate, and by the end of May, after exactly a year of operations, the Bomber Command units had lost 48 Mosquitos in 726 sorties, a 6.7 per cent loss rate; over the second half of the year, losses had avaraged 5.4 per cent. The latter rate was on the high side of tolerable, however, and the Mosquito units represented a higher concentration of valuable crew experience than the avarage bomber squaron.

See : Jeffrey L. Ethell, Robert Grinsell, Roger Freeman, David A. Anderton, Frederick A. Johnsen, Bill Sweetman, Alex Vanags-Baginskis, Robert C. Mikesh. The Great Book of World War II Airplanes. Zokeisha publications, Tokyo, 1996. ISBN 0-517-16024-2. Page 357-358.

So initially in mid-1942 it had 16% loss rate, which equals the results most catastrophic Stuka raids over England in 1940 - hardly an enviable figure for a supposedly 'invincible' bomber, by the 2nd half of the year, it was still very high, at around 8%; and in 1943, it was still between 5.4 and 7.5% loss rate in daylight operations, actually worser than conventional turreted bombers. As a result the Mosquitoes seem to suffer the same fate as just any other bomber; they were forced to fly higher, and/or during the night, from where they could bomb with much lower accuracy.


"Two strengthened flights were formed especially for this purpose [of killing Mosquitos]. The aircraft were 'souped up' by all sorts of tricks, special forms of attack were worked out. But to no avial. As far as I know no neither of these units ever shot down a Mosquito! They were disolved in Autumn 1943."

Sure they created Jagdgruppe 50 and indeed it did not score against Mosquitos; their only targets during their short existence instead become B-17s, of which they claimed 10 on two days of combat. they appear to have flown pressurized Bf 109G-5s and unpressurized G-6, perhaps with GM-1 injection; ten to twenty aircraft in total, and the unit was in existance for only about 4 months, after which it was integrated the new created JG 301.

So why was JGruppe 50 unsuccessfull? Well I guess they were less well situated for finding any Mosquitos over Wiesbaden, Germany than their colleges in France. Perhaps during the automn months of 1943, when the unit was in existance, the Mosquitos operated elsewhere, far from their bases.

Its another matter that other fighter and heavy fighter units, equipped with ordinary types, did score plenty against the Mosquito - here's the list for the known claims for 1943, on the Western Front. JG 1, JG 2 and JG 26 were regular offenders - note they were all better situated on the map to have plenty of chance of bumping into a Mosquito raid.

05.03.43 Fw. Georg Hutter: 8 5./JG 1 Mosquito  50 km. E. Lowestoft 14.20 Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 632
09.03.43 Ltn. Karl von Lieres u. Wilkau: 28 3./JG 27 Mosquito  10-3-3: tiefflug [45 km. N. Bayeux] 19.26 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.245
28.03.43 Ofw. Adolf Glunz: 29 4./JG 26 Mosquito  S. Lille: 10 m. 18.41 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.157
28.03.43 Ofw. Adolf Glunz: 30 4./JG 26 Mosquito  S. Lille: 10 m. 18.42 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.158
28.03.43 Ofw. Stebner 10./JG 5 Mosquito  5 km. N.W. Trondheim-Vaernes: 7.500 m. 13.20 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr. -
03.04.43 Uffz. Klein: 1 10./JG 1 Mosquito  05 Ost 78/2/7: 6.000 m. [35 km. S.W. Lister] 17.47 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr.40
03.04.43 Ofw. Willi Mackenstedt 6./JG 26 Mosquito  10 km. W. Maubeuge: tiefflug 20.30 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr.123
11.04.43 Hptm. Paul Steindl 9./JG 26 Mosquito  N.W. Ghent: tiefflug 20.36 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr.82
11.04.43 Uffz. Werner Wiegand: 1 2./JG 1 Mosquito  2 km. S.E. Bad Bentheim: tiefflug 20.38 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr.54
16.04.43 Fw. Georg Hutter: 9 5./JG 1 Mosquito  3 km. E. Oostmalle 30.dec Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 633
20.04.43 Maj. Helmut Lent Stab IV./NJG 1 Mosquito  531 1E1: 100 m. 03.38 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr.116
21.04.43 Oblt. Lothar Linke 12./NJG 1 Mosquito  531 7F1: 6.000 m. 07.febr Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr.138
23.04.43 Uffz. Kienle: 1 Stab I./JG 11 Mosquito  over Denmark 14.okt Reference: JG 1/11 Lists f. 633
03.05.43 Ltn. Gnther Bloemertz: 1 4./JG 26 Mosquito  80 km. N.N.W. Fcamp: tiefflug 13.45 Film C. 2031/II VNE: ASM
09.05.43 Hptm. Robert Olejnik: 38 4./JG 1 Mosquito  15 km. S.E. Den Helder: 20.13 Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 633
14.05.43 Ofw. Stechmaier 1./JG 107 Mosquito  Longuyon: 8.000 m. 13.28 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr. -
28.05.43 Ltn. Heinz Strning 2./NJG 1 Mosquito  4225: 5.400 m. 01.54 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.131
02.06.43 Fw. Garve 4.[F]/123 Mosquito  30/4/9: 300 m. 14.55 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: ASM
13.06.43 Ofw. Friedrich May 8./JG 2 Mosquito  5052 / 15 West: tiefflug 14.26 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr.185
13.06.43 Ofw. Friedrich May 8./JG 2 Mosquito  5052 / 15 West: tiefflug 14.37 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr.186
13.06.43 Fw. Alois Schnoll 8./JG 2 Mosquito  5052 / 15 West: tiefflug 14.38 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr.187
14.06.43 Ltn. Joachim Bialucha 2./JG 2 Mosquito  Ommel: 7.500 m. [W. Gac-Orne] 12.55 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr. -
19.06.43 Staffelabschuss V./KG 40 Mosquito  Mosquito No.151/S damaged - Reference: CG MSS f. 210
31.07.43 Besatzung [crew] 11./KG 53 Mosquito  N.W. Fl.Pl. Orlans/Bricy: 50-100 m. 02.40 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr. -
11.08.43 Ltn. Gerhard Blankenberg 13./KG 40 Mosquito  0845 / 14 West: 300 m. 17.50 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr. -
18.08.43 Uffz. Edmund Rajzner 4./JG 300 Mosquito  W. Berlin: 5.500 m. 00.17 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr. -
22.08.43 Oblt. Heinz Wurm 10./ZG 1 Mosquito  14 West N/8926: at 100 m. 11.okt Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.16
22.08.43 Oblt. Heinz Wurm 1./SAGr. 128 Mosquito  120 km. W. Brest 20.okt Reference: Arthy MSS f. 4
28.08.43 Fw. Schalk 12./JG 5 Mosquito  06 Ost / 4275: 500-20 m. [off Norway] 16.dec Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr. -
11.09.43 Staffelabschu 3./ZG 1 Mosquito  15 West S/0947: 200 m. 15.okt Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr. -
11.09.43 Staffelabschuss V./KG 40 Mosquito  380 km. W. Brest - Reference: CG MSS f. 216
22.09.43 Ofw. Fleischmann 7./JG 301 Mosquito  Oldenburg: 200 m. 24.00 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.1
24.09.43 Uffz. Rudolf Rauhaus: 4 5./JG 1 Mosquito  05 Ost S/FN-7: 9.700 m. [E. Zwolle] 18.dec Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr. -
25.09.43 Uffz. Reuter 15./KG 40 Mosquito  14 West N/6639: 1.000 m. 17.46 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr. -
25.09.43 Ofw. Kurt Gaebler 15./KG 40 Mosquito  - - Reference: CG MSS f. 217
30.09.43 Uffz. Held: 1 7./JG 11 Mosquito  40 km. W. Helgoland: 8.500 m. 14.19 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.Fo.
06.11.43 Hptm. Horst Geyer Epr.Kdo. 25 Mosquito  AN-6: 10.000 m. [20 km. N. Nancy] 11.35 Film C. 2031/II VNE: ASM
14.11.43 Ofw. Adolf Glunz 5./JG 26 Mosquito  S.W. Lille: 8.000 m. [1409 Flight] 16.00 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.111
01.12.43 Ogefr. Heinrich Roensch 7./ZG 1 Mosquito  14 West / 0863: 100 m. 11.45 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.26
01.12.43 Ltn. Oxberg 2./ZG 1 Mosquito  14 West / 0861: 100 m. 11.50 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.71
12.12.43 Hptm. Manfred Meurer 3./NJG 1 Mosquito  Herwijnen: 8.300 m. [Gelderland] 19.25 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.43
18.12.43 12./JG 5 12./JG 5 Mosquito  50313 Ost: no height 15.mj Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.3

mhuxt
11-07-2008, 04:19 AM
Wow.

An anecdote and a list of 1943 claims (including the ever-popular VNE/ASM) in a variety of European theatres, at all times of day.

"How's that compare against sorties flown, Kurfy?"

Kurfurst__
11-07-2008, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by mhuxt:

"How's that compare against sorties flown, Kurfy?"

"Losses on early [mid-1942] raids avaraged 16 percent of all sorties flown"

"By the end of November [1942], 24 Mosquitos had been lost out of 282 sorties flown; a loss rate of 8 per cent compared with a current rate of 5 per cent among the slow, turret-studded night bombers. "

"By the end of March, the Mosquitos had dropped a total of 2,000 tons of bombs, with a 7.5 per cent missing rate, and by the end of May, after exactly a year of operations, the Bomber Command units had lost 48 Mosquitos in 726 sorties, a 6.7 per cent loss rate; over the second half of the year, losses had avaraged 5.4 per cent."

Well it would appear that the Bomber Command Mosquitos had very high loss rates in 1942-1943.

WOLFMondo
11-07-2008, 05:26 AM
If thats all they managed in a whole year, given the thousands of Mosquito sorites, then the Mosquito was more effective than I thought.

Kurfurst__
11-07-2008, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
If thats all they managed in a whole year, given the thousands of Mosquito sorites, then the Mosquito was more effective than I thought.

I am not sure if the list is complete, its just what is on Tony Wood's site. I only filtered out claims that identified aircrafts as 'Mosquitos', so naturally mis-identifications or identification of the victim simply as '2-engined bomber' are not included.

Thousands of Mosquito sorties in 1943? I doubt that very much. More likely its a case of the lack of Mosquito sorties meant that they were seldom encountered by Luftwaffe fighters, so in absolutely numbers few were lost, relative to the numbers of sorties flown, however, the losses were close to being unsustainable.

EDIT: Looking at this table of bombload delivered, it indeed suggest that relatively few Mosquito bomber sorties were flown in 1942 (232 tons of bombs dropped by Mosquitos) and 1943 (1550 tons of bombs). Considering that the Mossie's bomb load was typically about a ton, this is roughly equivalent to the no. sorties flown.

mhuxt
11-07-2008, 06:24 AM
Which game are you wanting to play?

Losses of day bombers (to all causes), or claims by fighters and bombers (accepted and rejected) against day bombers and night bombers and day photo recce and day weather recce and day fighters and night intruders and Norway strike patrols?

If it's the latter - include the thousands of Mosquito sorties in 1943. If the former, pull out the fighter claims for everything other than day bombers, and include flak claims for same.

Kurfurst__
11-07-2008, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by mhuxt:
If it's the latter - include the thousands of Mosquito sorties in 1943.

Lets play the game where you find me a source for this alleged 'thousends of Mosquito sorties' for 1943. What aircraft were flying these thousands of sorties anyway? There were a mere 143 Mosquito Bombers produced by the start of 1943, plus 228 by the end of that year; a fraction of that went operational. The fighter bomber types were far more numerous (306 being produced by the start of 1943, and near a thousand was completed during the course of the year) but these typically did not penetrate deep into enemy territory, to be a concern for the Germans. They could ignore them just like they ignored Wellingtons and Blenheims over France previously.

Weather recce and Norway strike groups? Wait, you mean that the Mosquito operated with low losses where there was little or no Luftwaffe to face...? Certainly possible, but this ain't that much of a shock now is it?

Whats your point anyway? Is that regardless of the actual loss records of the aircraft, the Mosquito was that uninterceptable stealth bomber that was near-impossible to shoot down as the propaganda says?

Now now, if you want to 'play' with the grown-ups, you better put down some serious, sourced argument on the table. I am not sure about whining a single Mosquito claimed (and not verified) over Trondheim or making blurry references to mythical 'thousands of Mosquito sorties' counts as such.

Why not start presenting Mosquito sorties flown, losses suffered by Command and date instead?

mhuxt
11-07-2008, 07:00 AM
You could try "Mosquito" which lists the day bomber sorties in detail, and "Mosquito Squadrons of the Pathfinder Force" for starters.

380 day-bomber sorties, 1,834 night-bomber sorties in 1943, so there's 2,000 for a start. Then there's the rest.

If weather recce and Norwegian sorties don't interest you, why include them in your list of claims?

Either way, of the 380 Bomber Command day sorties, I can find 6 losses attributable to fighters.

As for whining about single Mosquito sorties, see your post above.

No41Sqn_Banks
11-07-2008, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Whats your point anyway? Is that regardless of the actual loss records of the aircraft, the Mosquito was that uninterceptable stealth bomber that was near-impossible to shoot down as the propaganda says?

You mean "as Adolf Galland says" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway these high loose rates during the first year of operation are very interesting. Could be related to a "more dangerous operations for a special aeroplane"-policy, i.e. if conventional bombers would have flown the same operations the Mosquitos flew during that time, the conventional bombers looses would have been much hight? I have no idea though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kurfurst__
11-07-2008, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by mhuxt:
You could try "Mosquito" which lists the day bomber sorties in detail, and "Mosquito Squadrons of the Pathfinder Force" for starters.

380 day-bomber sorties, 1,834 night-bomber sorties in 1943, so there's 2,000 for a start. Then there's the rest.

380 daylight bomber Mosquito sorties in the whole of 1943 - like, one sortie a day on avarage, two on sundays if weather permits?
There's your answer why the two daylight Mosquito Jagdgruppen were integrated into other units so quickly - there was simply no targets for them to shoot down.

And of these 1834 night-bomber sorties, how many of these were flown in the end of 1943, when LNSF was finally formed, and when the RAF finally found that the only reasonable way to avoid severe losses was to operate Mosquito bombers was by night, ie. the same tactic of avoiding daylight fighters as the other RAF bombers did, to which the Mosquito was supposed to be so superior because of its higher speed?


Originally posted by mhuxt:Either way, of the 380 Bomber Command day sorties, I can find 6 losses attributable to fighters.

That's 1.5% per sortie acknowledged by the RAF as lost to enemy daylight fighters. Of course, some 90% of the losses were simply documented as 'missing', as shot down crews seldom were able to report back on the cause. Thus the question is, how many more 'missing' are there without the cause known?



If weather recce and Norwegian sorties don't interest you, why include them in your list of claims?

As for whining about single Mosquito sorties, see your post above.

Matem I listed the known German claims for Mosquitoes in the West for 1943.
Then you started whining about that a handful of claims made over Norway and allegadly, wheater recce flights. What does it matter, I cannot imagine, but its certainly you who keep whining about it, like as it would change a thing.

M_Gunz
11-07-2008, 07:45 AM
The losses fell gradually, however, and the Mosquitos' ability to bite the Luftwaffe eagle's tail and survive was excellent propaganda. A Nazi rally in Berlin addressed by Ging and Goebbels was effectively disrupted by a Mosquito raid on 30 January, 1943; only one of the raiders was caught by the defences. [...] By the end of March, the Mosquitos had dropped a total of 2,000 tons of bombs, with a 7.5 per cent missing rate, and by the end of May, after exactly a year of operations, the Bomber Command units had lost 48 Mosquitos in 726 sorties, a 6.7 per cent loss rate; over the second half of the year, losses had avaraged 5.4 per cent.

Was that the total sorties flown by Mossies that year and total Mossies lost or is it certain
operation(s) only?

726 sorties from end of May 42 to end of May 43. Total? They got real busy later then,
after cutting the loss rate by over 3x?

WOLFMondo
11-07-2008, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

EDIT: Looking at this table of bombload delivered, it indeed suggest that relatively few Mosquito bomber sorties were flown in 1942 (232 tons of bombs dropped by Mosquitos) and 1943 (1550 tons of bombs). Considering that the Mossie's bomb load was typically about a ton, this is roughly equivalent to the no. sorties flown.

In theory it could be less than that but your not factoring in Mosquito sorties for maritime operations (such as the XVIII aircraft), photo recce, radio relay, fast transport (like the operations to Sweden marked as civilian aircraft) and then there is pure night fighter operations which wouldn't have any bomb load anyway and path finder sorties which again there is no bomb load.

I think its also worth pointing out in discussion that had for instance the Gestapo raid taken place with another medium or even light bomber the losses would have been greater. Its worth looking at it from the point of view that many of the operations the Mosquito undertook would have been suicidal in other types whereas with the Mosquito the risk was deemed acceptable. Then there is a 7.5% miss rate. Even in these modern times with precision weapons thats probably within acceptable limits.

I agree that the Mosquito has a similar mythical image as some other aircraft but there is no smoke without fire and the numbers on paper show it to be an all time great combat aircraft. Its certainly the opposite Blenhiem, Hampden, Manchester, Me210 or He177 e.g a failure.

mhuxt
11-07-2008, 08:13 AM
So in short, you posted Tony Wood's list verbatim, having done no research whatsoever as to how it supported your contention that the Mosquito was not an "uninterceptable stealth bomber that was near-impossible to shoot down as the propaganda says".

Now it's my fault that the list you posted contains all manner of Mosquitos flown in all manner of circumstances.

Edit - *sigh* Par for the course.

Xiolablu3
11-07-2008, 02:33 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 Xiolablu3:
It shows how hard it was for the German fighters to intercept the Mosquitos..

Adolf Gallands explains in his Auto-Biography - 'The First and the Last' :-

" A special chapter was the fight against the Mosquito.

England had developed an all purpose aircraft with extraordinary performance whose action over Germany caused a lot of trouble. The twin engined De Havilland Mosquito had a speed which none of our fighter planes could approach.....

... and the view from the other side:

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, I thought Adolf Galland was the 'other side'? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Remember, you are arguing with Adolf Galland here, not me....

One question from me : Can you tell us why the Head of the Luftwaffe fighter arm should be so ill-informed?

The report clearly states the 109 was diving from height and B&Zing and so maybe thats why it seemed a lot faster to the Mossie crew?

Its quite easy to attain a speed greater than 100mph on a lower aircraft when diving on them. Can you seriously suggest any German Bf109 which was 100mph than the 404mph top speed of the Moquito of 1942 in level flight?

mhuxt
11-07-2008, 11:02 PM
I think you probably mean 1944, as that's an XVI.

Aaron_GT
11-08-2008, 03:05 AM
Anyway these high loose rates during the first year of operation are very interesting. Could be related to a "more dangerous operations for a special aeroplane"-policy, i.e. if conventional bombers would have flown the same operations the Mosquitos flew during that time, the conventional bombers looses would have been much hight? I have no idea though

Raids in 1943 (excluding NOE stuff) were generally at lower altitudes than 1944, with a higher loss rate.

Mosquitos, as bombers, were doing four distinct missions:

1. Low altitude (under 300 ft ingress) special missions.
2. Night bombing.
3. Daylight bombing.
4. Pathfinding.

As night fighters:
1. Intruder
2. Bomber stream intermingling

As fighter bombers:
1. Naval strike.
2. Day ranger
3. Night ranger (which some airforces would also classify as intruder)

Plus:
1. Photo recon
2. Special transport
3. Weather recon
4. Navigational support (particularly for the USAAF as very few B-17s had these installed as it meant removing gun turrets or sacrificing speed, whereas the Mosquito had speed to spare).
5. A few other roles.

Aaron_GT
11-08-2008, 03:07 AM
Its quite easy to attain a speed greater than 100mph on a lower aircraft when diving on them. Can you seriously suggest any German Bf109 which was 100mph than the 404mph top speed of the Moquito of 1942 in level flight?

Top speed of an B.IV of the period (unloaded, and this would have been the case in the AAR) was 380mph.

Aaron_GT
11-08-2008, 03:15 AM
NB - Mosquito FB.VI has a slower max speed than the B versions as the engines of the B versions were optimised for high altitude whereas the FB for low/medium, and so the FB was faster at sea level. However often on NOE bombing raids B versions were often used when the FB versions might have been superior in some ways. Sometimes FB and B were used together.

I can't remember exactly what bomb loadouts we have in game we have for the B.IV but from memory we are missing some common historical ones, e.g. 2x500 plus 1x250. Strangely B versions never seemed to have carried underwing 500lbers despite being stressed for it, nor have I seen anything to suggest the Avro carrier was ever used - so no 6x500 or 8x500 loadout was ever used AFAIK.

mhuxt
11-08-2008, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

Top speed of an B.IV of the period (unloaded, and this would have been the case in the AAR) was 380mph.

The AAR says it was an XVI.

Kurfurst__
11-08-2008, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
One question from me : Can you tell us why the Head of the Luftwaffe fighter arm should be so ill-informed?

Why? No, I can't tell you that. Perhaps he was not reading Rechlin's test reports on the Mosquito's actual performance, I don't know. Perhaps he recalled only the funny stuff from it, the projected performance of the 'Griffin Mosquito', written at about the same time boys and girls on the other side of the channel were busy writing reports of the DB 603 powered new 109G and FW 190C...


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The report clearly states the 109 was diving from height and B&Zing and so maybe thats why it seemed a lot faster to the Mossie crew?

The report clearly states that the 109 was diving onto the Mosquito XVI (by far the fastest subtype) in the first attack, then it repeated this attack nine more times, and it 'seemed to be at least 100 m.p.h faster', and the crew agreed that the 109 was faster 'on all occasions'.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Its quite easy to attain a speed greater than 100mph on a lower aircraft when diving on them.

... and how do you explain the nine other attack runs after that?



Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Can you seriously suggest any German Bf109 which was 100mph than the 404mph top speed of the Moquito of 1942 in level flight?

I am not suggesting that. The British crew of the Mosquito XVI, who were there is suggesting it. Now, they might be wrong as to whether it was 100 mph or 50, but certainly they were much slower than the interceptor who made contact with them. It is just one real life example, supported by the rather high real life loss rate of the Mosquito on daylight operations in 1942 and 1943, as to how difficult interceptors found it to catch up with yet another 'fast bomber'.

Tux_UK
11-08-2008, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It is just one real life example, supported by the rather high real life loss rate of the Mosquito on daylight operations in 1942 and 1943, as to how difficult interceptors found it to catch up with yet another 'fast bomber'.

Isn't the point that it was a lot more difficult to catch up with or intercept successfully than any other light bomber of its class? No-one has ever argued that, if the circumstances were right, it wasn't relatively easy for Luftwaffe frontline fighters to intercept and shoot down a Mosquito - it clearly wasn't. What was difficult was coordinating the interception in the first place so that the aforementioned frontline fighters didn't end up having to run down an alert Mosquito in a protracted, fuel-guzzling tail-chase. The occurrence of such a chase was considered highly undesirable against any flight of bombers, let alone a bomber flying up to and exceeding 100mph faster than any other.

The B.XVI in the anecdote provided was surprised by the 109's attack. They hadn't seen it until it was already opening fire, let alone attempting to intercept! Under these circumstances, including the fact that the 109 was only 100yards away and had a 200ft altitude advantage when it opened fire (so presumably a greater advantage yet when it began its attack run), no Mosquito mark, nay, no aircraft of any variety was fast enough to simply break contact by firewalling the throttles. The interception was made before the Mosquito crew saw the 109, and then it's a close-quarters frontline fighter vs. photo recce plane fight - nothing more. The Mosquito dived to escape but has a marginal speed advantage over a late war 109 at that height, if any at all, so it won't be able to break contact straight away. Added to that we can suppose that the 109 might be zooming back upwards after each attack, and is so able to dive on the Mosquito to catch it each time. There is certainly no reason not to attack a Mosquito from 6 high, given the lack of armament, and it would also explain why the Mosquito found it possible to out-turn the Messerschmitt - the 109 was conducting slashing attacks at high speed and was unable to turn with the slower-moving twin. Nevertheless, the Mosquito did, eventually, escape.

This anecdote, were it not for the fact that the Mosquito escaped, would describe the perfect interception by a Luftwaffe fighter of a P.R. Mosquito. It's a textbook example of how to negate the Mosquito's excellent performance through the use of surprise and an altitude advantage. What it is not is typical. If it was then Mosquito losses would have been lucky not to exceed 80%, let alone single digits.

For interest's sake, one tactic that was utilised by P.R. crews of all nations was, if possible, to fly just above a band of altitudes at which contrails occurred. This way they would avoid leaving a trail themselves and, they hoped, easily spot any fighters climbing to intercept them since they must necessarily pass through the band. Some pilots preferred to fly immediately below the band so that they could spot any fighters preparing to 'bounce' them from above, and would trust their aircraft's flat-line performance to disengage them from a climbing pursuer. Neither tactic was infallible, naturally, but either would certainly add yet another problem for the luftwaffe to overcome before they could attempt to pull off 'the perfect interception'.

Aaron_GT
11-08-2008, 05:10 AM
Perhaps he recalled only the funny stuff from it, the projected performance of the 'Griffin Mosquito',

There was a Sabre project that was considered in 1941-2 which was to be an enlarged version with lower overall speed, the DH.99/101/102 series. The Griffon was considered briefly in 1938 and 1941. So your rationalisaton is not backed up by any evidence, although perhaps German intelligence was faulty.

Aaron_GT
11-08-2008, 05:23 AM
but has a marginal speed advantage over a late war 109 at that height

Best speed for that mark is at 25,000 ft based on the graph for the B.XVI prototype DZ540 at 404mph. Best cruise, though, is at 30,000 ft at 365 mph. This i why they generally operated above Actually the Mosquito was intercepted at perhaps where its advantage should have been at its gp25,000 feet later in the war - high speed cruise. Trading 3000 ft in a shallow dive with WEP was generally enough to shake off fighters. However the late war 109s were very fast at 25,000 to 30,000 feet, so a 109 attacking in a dive from, say, 32,000 feet would, by 28,000 ft potentially have a significant margin over a high speed cruise speed 360 mph at 28,000 ft, maybe even 100mph.

Aaron_GT
11-08-2008, 05:32 AM
I am not suggesting that. The British crew of the Mosquito XVI, who were there is suggesting it. Now, they might be wrong as to whether it was 100 mph or 50, but certainly they were much slower than the interceptor who made contact with them. It is just one real life example, supported by the rather high real life loss rate of the Mosquito on daylight operations in 1942 and 1943, as to how difficult interceptors found it to catch up with yet another 'fast bomber'.

They'd be somewhat unlikely to be flying a XVI from 1944 in 1942-3. The missions in 42-43 were at lower altitudes in IVs pending higher altitude versions (IX and XVI).

The loss rates for No. 105 & 139 (day bombing) for 31.5.42-31.5.43 were 6.7% sortie on sortie (i.e excluding other losses nt on operations), which is higher than the average of ~4% for night bombers, though. I have the figures per sortie but damned if I am going to type in a 5 page table!

Typical altitudes in this early period was ~22-25,000 feet. In 1944 it was ~28,000 ft.

CUJO_1970
11-08-2008, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
From that onwards it was more of a matter of how good radar operators were on the other side, how fast and precisly the interceptors were vectored onto the target;

Agreed, in Caldwell's JG26 book there is the example of Addi Glunz running down a Mosquito from a dead standstill on the runway.

He was flying a FW190A and with his first burst the Mosquito exploded. Poor guys never knew what hit them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Point is, they had been tracking the Mosquito on radar and were able to vector Glunz to it's location, even though it was an overcast day.

p1ngu666
11-08-2008, 07:53 AM
ingame it doesnt seem to matchupto whats written about it, just seems abit pathectic and meh to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

loss rates are misleading, mossies where used differently, on different missions that where typicaly longer distance and more dangerous...

and they often ran the engines flat out without problems for extended periods of time, and at the right heights they should be pretty much as fast as anything out there.

il2 doesnt really do bombers well tbh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Kettenhunde
11-08-2008, 08:21 AM
ingame it doesnt seem to matchupto whats written about it, just seems abit pathectic and meh to me

That seems to be a common theme in this game. It crops up in the P51, P47, FW-190, Bf-109, and other aircraft models too.

All the best,

Crumpp

Aaron_GT
11-08-2008, 08:41 AM
What we have (the FB.VI and B.IV) match well with the performance of early examples but don't match the performance of 1944 examples. By 1944 both the FB.VI and the few remaining B.IVs had much enhanced engines and the B.IV had been supplanted by the B.IX and B.XVI (the B.35 just clipped the end of WW2).

Where the bomber versions do badly is at low altitude - 335mph at SL, even for the B.XVI which was 40 mph faster than the B.IV at altitude. The FB.VI was better optimised for lower altitudes but was only really fast for the day in 1942-3 and is at the low end (even boosted) of average in 1944. So if online people are using a low boost FB.VI below ~8000 ft on 1944-5 servers they are going to be at a big disadvantage.

p1ngu666
11-08-2008, 10:15 AM
i think we had/have the engine thats reasonable at all alts, while really you need the engine thats good at low alts for ground attack, and thats dire for high alts (but your not gonna fly that high so who cares)

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-08-2008, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by gdfo:
Yes Ed, The Mosquito is quite undermodeled as are some other planes.

And of course you have done test and have the data to back up this claim. Right?

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-08-2008, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
From that onwards it was more of a matter of how good radar operators were on the other side, how fast and precisly the interceptors were vectored onto the target;

Agreed, in Caldwell's JG26 book there is the example of Addi Glunz running down a Mosquito from a dead standstill on the runway.

He was flying a FW190A and with his first burst the Mosquito exploded. Poor guys never knew what hit them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Point is, they had been tracking the Mosquito on radar and were able to vector Glunz to it's location, even though it was an overcast day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These reports like on all sides paint a vague picture. We do not know if the Mossie was flying at full power, if they knew they were being chased, if it had engine difficulties or damaged, ect. Same holds true for all reports when concerning speed and its the same for both sides. Personally I take black and white data over random pilot reports any day.

S!

Whirlin_merlin
11-08-2008, 10:43 AM
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 Xiolablu3:

Can you seriously suggest any German Bf109 which was 100mph than the 404mph top speed of the Moquito of 1942 in level flight?

I am not suggesting that. The British crew of the Mosquito XVI, who were there is suggesting it. Now, they might be wrong as to whether it was 100 mph or 50, but certainly they were much slower than the interceptor who made contact with them. It is just one real life example, supported by the rather high real life loss rate of the Mosquito on daylight operations in 1942 and 1943, as to how difficult interceptors found it to catch up with yet another 'fast bomber'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But hang on in the source you provide they talk of 'outturning the 109' following the initial attack, also they had decended from 28 to 12 thousand feet. So this doesn't really tell us alot out about 'level flight speeds'.

mhuxt
11-08-2008, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I have the figures per sortie but damned if I am going to type in a 5 page table!

And why would you want to, when your day-bomber apples will be compared to whatever oranges happen to be available?

So far, we've got day-bombers sufferinig heavy losses to undocumented, un-witnessed fighter shoot-downs, and LW units formed to counter high-altitude PR sorties being disbanded after driving low-level bombers away.

<shrug> Facts are useless versus pull-from-the-*** fantasies posted by folks who know zip about Mossie operations.

CUJO_1970
11-08-2008, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
These reports like on all sides paint a vague picture. We do not know if the Mossie was flying at full power, if they knew they were being chased, if it had engine difficulties or damaged, ect. Same holds true for all reports when concerning speed and its the same for both sides. Personally I take black and white data over random pilot reports any day.

S!


I'd say they had no idea they were being chased. It was an overcast day, and when Glunz pulled up through the overcast the Mosquito apparently took no evasive action. Glunz simply pulled the trigger and the Mosquito disintegrated.

No doubt the radar operators that had been tracking the Mosquito for some time would have been able to calculate it's ground speed, but it isn't recorded.

Kurfurst__
11-08-2008, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by mhuxt:

<shrug> Facts are useless versus pull-from-the-*** fantasies posted by folks who know zip about Mossie operations.

... Indeed, as your posts are the very definitive demonstration of that. It is understandable when some bark at the moon all the time - it an indication they simply have no substance to offer, and are gradually driven into a mad frenzy from the futility and frustration.

And what's up with these apples and oranges my friend? Singing again that only song you know from childhood? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

But just ignore that, you probably don't understand it anyway.

Kurfurst__
11-08-2008, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Personally I take black and white data over random pilot reports any day.

S!

I am inclined to that as well, but it just usually leads to 'chart wars' and endless bickering of the results and the extent of their representative value. It also tends to focus on all-out performance that, IMHO and it seems I am not alone with this opinion, is not the only, and perhaps not even the most important part of the formula.

Tactics, typical mission profile, the operational situation* visibility, quality of ground control are all much more important. What this little piece of British intel shows (apart from appearantly the guys at the office were freaked out again by the possibility of a 'secret boost', but it was probably just an ordinary Gustav with AS engine with a rookie pilot at the stick who repeatadly missed his shots on the attack run) is that with proper interception tactics, contact could be made even on the fastest Mosquito subvariants under typical mission conditions, and once made, contact could not be broken by just firewalling the throttle, manouvers (and tricks like hiding in clouds etc.) were far more effective than relying on speed.

* i.e. who were more likely to be intercepted, for example, at night by nightfighters? Five hundred Lancasters struggling at an easily reachable 12 000 feet altitude following the twenty or so Pathfinder Mosquitos that attacked before the defences were alerted and the enemy target for the night become clear..?

Aaron_GT
11-08-2008, 03:22 PM
Kurfurst is correct that from mid 1942-43 Mosquito day losses were heavier than average RAF losses (which were by day), although whether 6.7% (in action, there were additional non combat losses, accidents, etc too of course) counts as heavy per se is open to debate. I'd say that 8%+ would certainly count as heavy (this being the rate that led to hiatus after Schweinfurt) and 4% was average (RAF night, USAAF day). 6.5% is slap bang in the middle!

The tactics were changed to fly higher with 70 series merlins when the B.IX and B.XVI became available (the final B.35 used 110 series, with presurisation) and this cut losses to about 1.5% per sortie, or much lower than average. The extra 5000 feet of altitude and 40mph of speed made a huge difference.

Looking at the charts a 1944 +18 boost FB.VI topped out at 355mph at SL which isn't totally embarassing. I don't have charts for a 1942 FB.VI in any of my books.

p1ngu666
11-08-2008, 07:16 PM
the FBVI was intro'ed in 43 wasnt it?

Xiolablu3
11-08-2008, 09:12 PM
Mosquitos were used on daylight raids over Berlin right from their introduction, its no wonder they had some loss rates that were higher than the Lancasters flying at night.

MOsquitos did arguably far more dangerous sorties on pinpoint targets like the prison wall at AMiens, Gestapo Headquarters and propaganda targets like Nazis leader speeches.

On one single day in January 1943 Mosquitos flew in broad daylight to bomb Berlin and the radio station and disrupt Goerings speech. In the very same afternoon Mosquitos agian disrupted Goebbles speech. This was because there had been recent boasts from Goering to the German public that the RAF could never attack Berlin in daylight. This was the first ever Allied daylight raid on Berlin and caused severe embarassment to Goering, and the Nazis, as the speech was to commerorate Hitlers rise to power, only to be disrupted by Air Raid Sirens and explosions..

Also printing Mosquito losses really means nothing as most of them could have been lost to flak, and not German fighters.


Joseph Goebles :

'The Fhrer than asks me over for a short visit. During the interview I have with him he is very impressed by my account of things. I give him a description of the devastation which is being wrought and tell him particularly of the increasing fury of the Mosquito raids which take place every evening. I cannot prevent myself voicing sharp criticism of Goring and the Luftwaffe. '

Mosquitos were certainly not 'just 20 or so pathfinders'.

JtD
11-08-2008, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Looking at the charts a 1944 +18 boost FB.VI topped out at 355mph at SL which isn't totally embarassing. I don't have charts for a 1942 FB.VI in any of my books.

That's for 25lbs. With 18 you'd get around 330 on the deck.
See here. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/hx809-level.jpg)

I don't quite get what all the blabla is about, Mosquito performance is very well documented here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/mosquito.html).

After all, it is pretty much done ok in FB. Top speed down low was about as good as the top speed of the contemporary 109's, which makes the plane very hard to intercept.

Xiolablu3
11-09-2008, 02:11 AM
The average 1943 Mosquito would most likely be around the same speed at the various heights as the by far most produced Bf109 through 1943 and well into 1944, the standard G6. (in fact by far the most produced version of all)

Which, as JTD has mentioned, makes it hard to intercept IRL.

This is likely why Galland mentions the two squadrons trying to soup up their aircraft in order to try and catch them.

Aaron_GT
11-09-2008, 02:26 AM
the FBVI was intro'ed in 43 wasnt it?

Yes, first flight 1st June 1942 but not in service until 1943.

Aaron_GT
11-09-2008, 02:28 AM
That's for 25lbs. With 18 you'd get around 330 on the deck.

Right you are - I was reading the wrong line on the chart. Doh! I thought it seemed higher than I remembered!

p1ngu666
11-09-2008, 07:55 AM
crews mention 360mph tho... and given their superb time record im kinda inclinded to go with them..

that was with the low alt engine tho...

hop2002
11-09-2008, 09:38 AM
That's for 25lbs. With 18 you'd get around 330 on the deck.

Bear in mind though those figures are for an aircraft fitted with flame damping exhausts for night flying, and carrying drop tanks under the wings.

WTE_Galway
11-09-2008, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by JtD:

I don't quite get what all the blabla is about, Mosquito performance is very well documented here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/mosquito.html).

After all, it is pretty much done ok in FB. Top speed down low was about as good as the top speed of the contemporary 109's, which makes the plane very hard to intercept.

The fuss is because the MYTH that has arisen has the mosquito whizzing all over the sky, flying up to a 109, thumbing their nose at the Germans, then poking out their tongue before fire-walling the throttle and rocketing away disappearing into the distance before the 109 even has time to squeeze off a shot leaving the 109 pilot dumbfounded.

One of the good things about IL2 has been the way it has taught many people to question the myths and try and find out the real facts behind the stories.

HellToupee
11-09-2008, 10:45 PM
Main issue is in game we have a fighter bomber variant, its rl advantages do not translate well into game, or do people have missions that represent how they were actually used.

If we had the bomber variant it would be another story, if you have ever done high alt bombing you would see how much an advantage is speed.

They were bombers as faster as fighters extremely difficult to intercept but not SR-71s

ImpStarDuece
11-09-2008, 11:05 PM
Some interesting figures on Bomber Command losses by Group:

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/bc_stats_group.htm

Mossie loss rates varied from 0.2% (Radio countermeasures operations, with a very low overall loss rate) to 5.0% (light bomber operations with No 2 Group), depending on Group.

According to the data on the above website the Mosquito had 228 losses with BC, from 39,847 sorties. That is a loss rate of approximately 0.6%.

This seems to only account for about 1/2 of the total Mosquito losses with BC, which I believe were 516 overall. But, I could be wrong. Its just a figure which sticks in the head.

Its important to remember that the Mosquito was used as a night fighter and fighter bomber as well, and that only about 40% of its total operations were bomber sorties.

Whirlin_merlin
11-10-2008, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
The fuss is because the MYTH that has arisen has the mosquito whizzing all over the sky, flying up to a 109, thumbing their nose at the Germans, then poking out their tongue before fire-walling the throttle and rocketing away disappearing into the distance before the 109 even has time to squeeze off a shot leaving the 109 pilot dumbfounded.


Does this myth really exist, the most anyone is saying is that under ideal (for the mossie) circumstances they were very hard to intercept.
Is that so outragous, does it need the might myth busters of the ubizoo to set the record straight?

p1ngu666
11-10-2008, 03:30 AM
there is one of a 190 pilot flying too low while chasing a mossie and prop striking the ground http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WOLFMondo
11-10-2008, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Mosquitos were used on daylight raids over Berlin right from their introduction, its no wonder they had some loss rates that were higher than the Lancasters flying at night.


Imagine a B25 or other medium or light bomber tasked with the same thing, the loss rates would have been closer to loss rates the 8th Airforce suffered when flying unescorted in 1943.

Kurfurst__
11-10-2008, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Some interesting figures on Bomber Command losses by Group:

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/bc_stats_group.htm

Mossie loss rates varied from 0.2% (Radio countermeasures operations, with a very low overall loss rate) to 5.0% (light bomber operations with No 2 Group), depending on Group.

According to the data on the above website the Mosquito had 228 losses with BC, from 39,847 sorties. That is a loss rate of approximately 0.6%.

This seems to only account for about 1/2 of the total Mosquito losses with BC, which I believe were 516 overall. But, I could be wrong. Its just a figure which sticks in the head.

Its important to remember that the Mosquito was used as a night fighter and fighter bomber as well, and that only about 40% of its total operations were bomber sorties.

Its worth noting though that most of the Mosquito night bomber sorties were flown with the RAF in 1944 - at the same period the loss rate of other night bombers fell down considerably, especially by late 1944. But since other RAF night bombers (ie. the Lanc and Halifax) operated a lot in the previous years as well, when they met stiffer opposition, their overall loss rates for the entire war also show higher, on avarage. In their case, the losses of 1942, 1943 and 1944 are weighted in more evenly, in case of Mosquito night operations, the losses of 1944 are weighting far more heavily in losses.

The same tendencies can be found with other bomber types as well - Halifaxs operating with No. 100 Group (Radio Counter Measure ops) suffered only 0.7 % loss rate, Pathfinder Halifaxs 3.7 %, while bomber group Halifax operations something in the order of 2.2%. It strongly supports that loss rates had a lot more to do with the tactical and overall strategic circumstances, rather than technical ones.

ImpStarDuece
11-10-2008, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Its worth noting though that most of the Mosquito night bomber sorties were flown with the RAF in 1944 - at the same period the loss rate of other night bombers fell down considerably, especially by late 1944.

Everybody, do the twist! Lets twist again, like we did last Summer, lets twist again, like we did last year.

Here, fixed for you: "Its worth noting though that most night bomber sorties were flown by the RAF in 1944."

1944 sorties account for 54.5% of total BC sorties and 52.8% of total bomb tonnage dropped. The Halifax dropped 65.1% of its tonnage in 1944, the Lancaster 59.3%

For the Mosquito, 1944 sorties account for 56.9% of total sorties and 56.4% of tonnage dropped.

So, in terms of tonnage dropped, 1944 was less important for the Mosquito than the two other RAF types.

And the notion that tactical considerations are a contributing factor to loss rates. How blindingly obvious.

The Halifax was operational in March 1941, the Lancaster in early 1942, the Mosquito in September 1941 and bomber operations in 1942.



The same tendencies can be found with other bomber types as well - Halifaxs operating with No. 100 Group (Radio Counter Measure ops) suffered only 0.7 % loss rate, Pathfinder Halifaxs 3.7 %,

The relative loss rate for Mosquitos with 100 Group on RCM operaions was 0.2% (1 per 500 sorties) and for Pathfinder operations was 0.4%. The Mosquito had the lowest loss rate of any type conducting these operations.

Kurfurst__
11-10-2008, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Its worth noting though that most of the Mosquito night bomber sorties were flown with the RAF in 1944 - at the same period the loss rate of other night bombers fell down considerably, especially by late 1944.

Everybody, do the twist! Lets twist again, like we did last Summer, lets twist again, like we did last year.

Here, fixed for you: "Its worth noting though that most night bomber sorties were flown by the RAF in 1944."

1944 sorties account for 54.5% of total BC sorties and 52.8% of total bomb tonnage dropped. The Halifax dropped 65.1% of its tonnage in 1944, the Lancaster 59.3%

For the Mosquito, 1944 sorties account for 56.9% of total sorties and 56.4% of tonnage dropped.

So, in terms of tonnage dropped, 1944 was less important for the Mosquito than the two other RAF types.

And the notion that tactical considerations are a contributing factor to loss rates. How blindingly obvious.

The Halifax was operational in March 1941, the Lancaster in early 1942, the Mosquito in September 1941 and bomber operations in 1942. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well thank you for the opening dance.

From the same site Imp' just linked above.

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/bc_stats6.htm

Tons Of Bombs Dropped By Aircraft Type

Mosquito

1941 - 0
1942 - 232 (Lancs: 11,367)
1943 - 1,550 (Lancs: 100,517)
1944 - 15,160 (Lancs: 361,004)
1945 - 9,925 (Lancs: 135,724)

Total: 26,867 (Lancs: 608,612)

It would appear to me, that out of the 26,867 tons dropped by the Mosquito, 25,085 tons or 93.3% of the total was dropped in 1944/45. Flying the vast majority of your sorties when there is the least amount of opposition helps with loss rates doesn't it.

In comparison Lancs dropped 81.6% of all in 1944/45, ie. they saw plenty of missions when things were still pretty darn hot. Mosquitos came when the party was beginning to break up. Of course you may do the same stats with Halifax during your next nutty dancing session.

So, if I can kindly ask you, next time you make the banzai charge with fancy battlecries, be sure to wipe the BS from your shoes before you fall over because of it.

Aaron_GT
11-10-2008, 03:31 PM
AFAIK German NF forces were very active throughout 1944. The important statistic would be # BC night sorties / # LW NF sorties for 1942-5. Can we find the data?

M_Gunz
11-10-2008, 04:14 PM
Would you compare Mossie to Ju-88 for basic approach of speed and mission capability?
Before the end though IMO Germany had the best of breed with the Arado.

After reading about the political struggles that Heinkel and Messerschmidt went through with
Milsch causing multiple long delays I do believe that Germany could have had jets operational
a year before they did just at the pace they worked when not ordered to stop. With a special
program they could have been sooner, maybe by mid 43 would have been He-280's debugged enough
to be a real problem and jets capable of hitting deep into Russia and a very different war.

Of course they still wouldn't have had the special resources to make a lot of such planes but
things would have dragged on longer and the world so much poorer by the end.

John_Wayne_
11-10-2008, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


yadda yadda yadda...

It would appear to me, that out of the 26,867 tons dropped by the Mosquito, 25,085 tons or 93.3% of the total was dropped in 1944/45. Flying the vast majority of your sorties when there is the least amount of opposition helps with loss rates doesn't it.

In comparison Lancs dropped 81.6% of all in 1944/45, ie. they saw plenty of missions when things were still pretty darn hot. Mosquitos came when the party was beginning to break up. Of course you may do the same stats with Halifax during your next nutty dancing session.

...yadda yadda yadda.

.

So, in 1944/45 there was the least amount of opposition, yet in 1944/45 things were pretty darn hot. Great argument Kurfy - keep it up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif


"Recent Mosquito raids on Berlin have become heavier still. Serious damage is being done to our transport system. The British have now raided the capital every evening for 21 days in a row with these loathesome Mosquitoes. There is in effect no defence against them."

If you can't trust Goebbels, who can you trust, eh?

Aaron_GT
11-10-2008, 05:07 PM
Would you compare Mossie to Ju-88 for basic approach of speed and mission capability?

Ju-88 as originally designed before it gained lots of weight, yes.

Tux_UK
11-10-2008, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by John_Wayne_:
If you can't trust Goebbels, who can you trust, eh?

Lmao, I love that. A sig-worthy quote if ever I saw one!


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Would you compare Mossie to Ju-88 for basic approach of speed and mission capability?

Ju-88 as originally designed before it gained lots of weight, yes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. I think that's the 'tell' in this particular argument. If you had to choose a multi-purpose twin-engined aircraft of the basic light bomber/ recce class to equip your airforce with during WWII, which would you all choose? I think the Mosquito wins hands down. Its competitors are probably the A-20 and Ju-88/ 188/ etc. series, and the Mosquito does everything those two do, and more, with a much better survival rate. The A-26 Invader, Ar-234 and others begin to compete in the closing stages of the war, but overall the Mosquito was the most impressive type of its class. Granted, its performance is occasionally exaggerated, but would any of you honestly choose any other type?

Ed6269
11-12-2008, 10:19 AM
Thanks, all, for your input. I enjoy reading the forum as much as I do simming because of the quality of discussion. I really do learn a lot.
Most of the reality of air combat can never be simulated: we all know that essentially it comes down to seeing, and situational awareness, and that in the real world duels between aircraft rarely take place. Humans are efficient predators and will back-stab and bushwhack whenever possible. It also goes without saying that people behave completely differently whenever there are actual consequences. Theoretical dangers and simulated combat can never take this into account unless players are willing to get wired to a cattle prod that will inflict pain whenever they do something risky. The computer ai all-seeing quality reduces combat reality by 90% I agree that the most important aspects of air combat can never be built into this, or any, sim.

Kurfurst__
11-13-2008, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
AFAIK German NF forces were very active throughout 1944. The important statistic would be # BC night sorties / # LW NF sorties for 1942-5. Can we find the data?

IIRC BC loss rates were steadily shinking through 1944 after D-Day, to the extent of being extremely low by the end of 1944. Two major factors contributed to this: with Allied ground advance, the Luftwaffe lost its early warning radar network in Western Europe, so the first alerts could be raised only about 200 km from the German border, and secondly, fuel shortage made its presence felt with larger aircraft.

Generally the point being raised is that with the Mosquito sorties being more of a 1944 thing than a 1942 or 1943 thing, their sorties also faced lighter opposition, as well the numerical advantage of the Allies was more pronounced. And while the strenght of the Nachtjagd also peaked in 1944, they had a much shorter envolope to make a killing. Ie. if there is only time/resources to shoot down say 50 bombers a night, the loss rates will be lower, naturally, if on a single night more bombers attack and overload the defences, even if in the absolute sense the losses at the same.

Aaron_GT
11-13-2008, 01:59 PM
Generally the point being raised is that with the Mosquito sorties being more of a 1944 thing than a 1942 or 1943 thing, their sorties also faced lighter opposition, as well the numerical advantage of the Allies was more pronounced. And while the strenght of the Nachtjagd also peaked in 1944, they had a much shorter envolope to make a killing. Ie. if there is only time/resources to shoot down say 50 bombers a night, the loss rates will be lower, naturally, if on a single night more bombers attack and overload the defences, even if in the absolute sense the losses at the same.

Good points. And as I said before the big statistic will be NF:BC sortie ratios as that is a rough proxy for the chances of a BC plane being intercepted. Even if NF sortie rate remained the same then with increasing BC sortie rate this ratio will decrease, as you note.