Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Magic Mossies
Aussiegunneragain    7/11/2010 9:01:10 AM
There was a thread on here a few years ago put up by a fellow named Shooter, who was trying to make the argument that the Dehavilland Mosquito was a strategically insignificant aircraft which should never have been produced for the RAF, because it represented a waste of engines which could have better been used in Avro Lancasters. Shooter, an American, had a hobby of trying to diss any non-American type that had an excellent reputation (the Spitfire was another favourite target) and most people here told him he was being a clown with that being the end of it. However, the thread has stuck in the back of my mind and made me wonder whether in fact the Mossie, despite its widespread usage in a variety of roles, was in fact underutilised in the daylight strategic bombing role? It did perform some very important low level raids such as the daylight raid on the Phillips radio works (along with Ventura's and Bostons - far less Mossies were shot down)in Holland during Operation Oyster. However, I can't find many references to the Mossie being used for the sort of regular high altitude daylight strategic bombing missions that the B-17 and other USAF daylight heavies conducted. Consider its characteristics: -It could carry 4 x 500lb bombs all the way to Berlin which meant that you needed three mossies to carry a slightly larger warload than one B-17 did, which upon this basis meant more engine per lb of bomb in the Mossie. -However, the Mossie was hard to catch and was more survivable than the Heavies. The latter only really became viable with the addition of long-range escort fighters, something that the mossie could have done without. -It only required two crew versus ten on a B-17. Without intending to be critical of the USAF daylight heavies, because they were one of the strategically vital assets in winning WW2, I am wondering whether had the RAF used the Mossie in the role at the expense of night bombing operations in Lancasters? I have read accounts that suggest that the later were not really directly successful in shutting down German production, with the main contribution being that they forced the Germans to provide 24/7 air defence. If they had used Mossies more in the daylight precision role is it possible that the impact that the fighter-escorted USAF bombers had on German production might have been bought forward by a year or so, helping to end the War earlier? Another idea that I have is that if Reich fighter defences had started to get too tough for unescorted Merlin powered Mossies on strategic daylight missions, that they could have built the Griffon or Sabre powered versions that never happenned to keep the speed advantage over the FW-190? Up-engined Fighter versions of the Mossie would also have probably had sufficient performance to provide escort and fighter sweep duties in Germany in order to provide the bombers with even more protection. Thoughts? (PS, in case anybody hasn't worked it out the Mossie is my favourite military aircraft and my second favourite aircraft after the Supermarine S-6B ... so some bias might show through :-). I do think it has to rate as one of the best all round aircraft of all time based on its merits alone).
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT
oldbutnotwise       3/14/2013 8:58:10 AM
furthe to this post
But what it does mean is that there is X amount of gas still left to burn in the B-17's tanks when the Lancaster runs dry! And that amount of gas "X" is sufficient for a B-17 to fly 900 miles.
I still have not heard of any Lanc raid that flew with bombs to a range of 2,200 miles round trip air miles that the B-17 flew to Trondhiem and back. ( 912 Miles Great Circle distance!) In fact, I've neaver heard of any Lancaster Mission that flew 912 Air Miles each way.
But I am always eager to learn, if any of you know of such a mission, please post same for all to see.
 
The mission to Trondhiem (I guess he means the bombing one and not the leaflet dropping one) dropped maximum 4000lbs/aircarft at 15000ft in 43
So far I havent found a Lancaster mision to Trondheim but I have found an earlier BC mission in May 42 when Wellingtons dropped 4000lbs/Aircraft loads fom 14000ft (I discouned the Hampdens attacking the Tripitz with 1500lbs torpedoes as that would just make the some of the B17 with 2000lbs loads look bad)
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/14/2013 9:18:00 AM
and just a final word, from a gentleman who has been collating BC losses and causalties for the last 40 years
 
"By the end of the war, RAF Bomber Command had flown 372,650 sorties and
lost 8,617 aircraft and 47,268 aircrew"
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/14/2013 2:48:59 PM

with inferior bombing aids, a wash? Completely true until late war when the US satrted to install Bitish blind bombing equipment and vastly increased thier accuracy
Did you know that we built roughly eight times as many of those blind bombing radars as the British did and installed more of them sooner than the RAF in late 1944/45? So, I would say it was a wash. 
 
that could bomb no better, and actually no higher with any accuracy, It was the RAF that stated that less than half the bombs they dropped landed inside the city limits!
Both the USAAF and RAF post war surveys agree that agaisnt the SAME target the RAF night bombing by 44 was as accurate as the USAAF
  And all the tonnage dropped before the middle of 1944? Right!

that exposed more crews to enemy action True! and delivered fewer bombs per sortie, True! is supposed to be the better plane than the Lancaster? Absolutely!
only in Stuarts mind, and dont forget the major reason why the B17 is better, its a US plane and the Lanc is GB so that has to make the B17 better
  It's better because it killed so many less of it's crew members and if flew and faught in the broad day light! Just those two things alone are more than enough to make it the best bomber of the War in Europe!

RAF-BC crew KIA >55,000, USAAF bomber crews lost to enemy action < 30,000!
figure already disproved
  Never! Those are the official figures of the Forces conserned! We lost about 50,000 men from all parts of our air force to enemy action, the RAF-BC, not the entire RAF, just the Bomber Command, lost over 55,000! Given that no-one has ever posted a retort to the initial post, I'd be forced to say you lied above!

This despite the obvious great advances made in aircraft design between 1934 and 1937-1941 (Manchester that evolves into the Lancaster) and the demonstrated greater adaptability of the Lancaster to meet changing conditions? And in the same time, the B-17A/B/C/D TURNED into the B-17 E/F/G which was in most ways a completely different plane than the early versions!
firstly most of the changes to the A/B/C/D were instigated from the combat use of the B17 by the RAF
    True!

secondly we are only considering the F/G anyway.
The E/F/G was a newer plane than the Lancaster which was little changed from the start and with the exception of the wing stretch and extra engines. IE the fuse was unchanged in any major way!           


 

 





 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/14/2013 3:04:19 PM

I see that the Lancaster and Flying Fortress are essentially similar sized, Almost true! The -17 is slightly wider span and aspect ratio and a better EEW to MTO Ratio, better armor and weapons, strength, more reliable engines and much better stability.
well some of that is right, but the Lancaster was not less stable Well yes it is less stable! You can not have "Light and responcive controls" at the same time as being "More stable"! it certainly had more reliable engines that those horrible Cyclones No, they were not more reliable and it was not even close! Even the worst case of less than 300 hours TBO of the Cyclone Vs the 150 hours "AVERAGE" of the Merlin. and as the PRIMARY weapon of a Bomber is its BOMBS then the Lanc had superior weapony
  AS I have always agreed and stated the Lancaster DID carry more bombs on average than the B-17, but it was not because of aerodynamic superiority, which is simply the reverce, but because of operational choices! The B-17 is aerodynamically superior to the Lancaster. Both planes standard versions, >8,000 Gs Vs <7,400 Lancs which could cary a weight, regardless of how, of 17,600 to 18,000 pounds. No one with knowledge of the actual performance of the two planes thinks that the Lancaster can be flown as far at any given Take Off Wieght as the plackard figures for the two planes shows and given exactly the same operational considerations! IE, the same TOW and the same altitude and speed! Because AAA is very much more effective the lower you go, the choise to go higher, with ALL that that entials means that the RAF-BC took more dead and wounded in spite of flying in the dark which makes the most effective part of the deffense less effective, IE the fighter, at least as stated by the RAF-BC!
the often quoted 17500lbs number is a red herring as that was a paper figure and not something actualy achieved.
Correct, just as the Average bomb load of the Lancaster was about 8000 pounds, not 14-18000 pounds! No mater how you slice it the weight of bombs carried depends on other factors besides the maximum bomb load that can be carried!  
 
 The only reason that the Lanc "Averaged" more bombs per mission is because of Tactical/strategic choises that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the plane's ability to lift a load!
It has EVERYTHING to do with the load the B17 could not carry > 9600lbs without hanging them off the wings something that slashed its range and performance, it could only carry 2000-3000lbs to berlin untill the toyko tanks were introduced and then that was increased to 4000-5000lbs and thats to a target the lanc was carrying 14000lbs to.
Then why was the the "Average" bomb load of the lancaster about 8000 pounds?

the often quoted 17500lbs number is a red herring as that was a paper figure and not something actualy achieved. the bottom line is that the B17 boybay was small very small, even the B24 had twice the capacity of a B17
While all of this is true on it's face, it is totally irrealivant! The B-17's bomb bay was not that small, it was twice as wide and two and a half times as tall as the lancaster's bay! In other words, except for the maximum length, the two bays were very close in total volume!                                                   


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/14/2013 3:27:27 PM

cont;
and traveled farther with that bomb load (hours in the air. Fuel consumption matters). Yes it does! There is not that much differance in SFC at cruising speeds, IE both planes use about the same amount of fuel per hour at the same speeds. loads and altitudes! But then the B-17 carries much more fuel and can stay in the air about a third more hours than the Lancaster.
only if you have both sides of the bomb bay filled with fuel cells which makes it rather pointless as a bomber doesnt it? you get the range but noting to drop when  you get there!
This is where you are very wrong! The B-17 did not-does not need those bomb bay tanks to significantly out range the Lancaster, IF they are flown at the same altitude, speed and MTO!
  
the Lancaster with 14000lbs had a greater range than the B17 did with 4000lbs But only if the two planes fly at vastly different altitudes! but because shooter found a site that quoted 3400 miles as the range for a B17 he will keep throwing that figure up as the B17 range when , if he had read and UNDERSTOOD the article he would have seen that its was a FERRY range
That figure is the range with 4000 pounds of bombs with one 410 gallon tank in the left side of the bomb bay and the Tokyo tanks filled at a OLTO of 72,000 pounds, If flown at less than 18,000'!

how did the lancaster carry less fuel to attack the same target with a bigger bombload, oh unless the lancaster USED less fuel - I hadnt thought of that, have you any evidence of that?
The one and only reason the Lancaster could do this is because the mission was flown at a much lower ALTITUDE! IF the Lanc was forced to fly as high as the average B-17 mission, it would not have carried as much load to as long a range! This is the single largest fact that you have never addressed! Altitude is important both in the consideration of fuel ecconomy and load carried! It is the one and only factor that means anything!
The B-17 could not eliminate the additional gunners as the plane needed them for daylight defense. Yes, this is also true! BUT, the Lancaster did not carry that armor and was very much more dangerous to fly in and it showed in spite  of the Lancs prederliction for night missions!
oh and the fact that they used the Lancs against the heaviest defended targets consistantly whilst only sending the B17 agasinst them occasionally (due to the losses the B17 suffered when they did 20-30% agaisnt tthe BC 3-5%)
This is the difference between night and day light missions!
So, except for the minor and major defects above, you got it right?                                                              
so between the original post and shooters reply we can see that you were correct and shooter is wrong
In over 100 posts, you have never addressed the altitude question! You have never addressed the aerodynamic quality of the two plane as shown by the huge differances in service cielings, or speed with less power!
1. So to contain the argument; The Lancaster has a lower service cieling at a lower weight!
2. The B-17 is faster on less power.
3. The planes have the same MTOs and OLTOs!
Answer these three questions before you can go to any other argument.


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/14/2013 3:41:27 PM

No, we know for a fact that the B-17 flew ~291,000 sorties. We also know that the Lancaster flew about 156,000 missions. So if we devide 608,000 tons by 156,000 sorties we get just under 8,000 pounds per trip.
but we already know that this is 2500lbs short of the actual number (say roughly 25% low)
No, it is the right number at least as far as the RAF's version of their Strategic bombing survey unit!
Then if we devide the 640Kt by the 291,000 missions, you get about 4,400 pounds per trip. and this is 2500lbs HIGHER than the actual number (say 50% High)
And again we know this is the right number at least as far as the USAAF Startegic Bombing Survey! So you are wrong again and I was right both times! 
 The RAF-BC lost just over 55,000 crew Killed in Action. The USAAF lost just under 50,000 including fighter and transport pilots.
say 55000 Bomber crews and Fighter escort pilots which is a more accurate figure 
  NO! It is the figure stated by the RAF-BC! 55,000 crew killed in action buy enemy action! So it is the right figure and you are wrong  again!

So the B-17 flew less than twice as many missions in less than 10% more bomber-days!
an irrelavent figure
  Except that it shows the B-17 was availible for those extra missions!
 
That is that there were so many planes availible on so many days and those numbers are less than 10% apart. Because heavy bombers can not fly more than one mission per day, AND the fact that there was LESS than 10% MORE Bomber Days availible to the B-17, It had to be roughly 70% more reliable!
    no its doesnt as your figure fails to take into consideration battle damage, crew fatigue and numeous other figures.
  All of those things are of a part! They go both ways and as such they wash each other out!
 
The fact that the B-17 had to fly 291,000 missions means that the engines had more hours running, more start up and stop cycles, more tempurature cycles into colder stratispheric air and twice as many hours to get damaged by enemy fire! Yet they still flew 291K Missions to 156 K Missions! In only 10% more plane days!
yet more rubbish
  Yes, and you are spreading it!

291,000 sorties vs 156,000 sorties. 640,000 tons to 608,000 tons. Almost the same number of Plane days. One of these two records is for a plane that was very reliable and the other that was marginal at best!
firstly you are using short vs long again
  This was throughly disprooved two dozen posta ago with the link to the RAF's Stratigic Bombing Survey Unit Report!
They were ALL in short tonnes, no-one but shipping companies used long tons! Not the RAF and not the British Army!
 
then we have this big difference in the figures for the lancaster, an AVERAGE bombload of 10500lbs and 156000 sorties gives 819000 tons not your 608000 whilst your B17 average of 2500lbs and 291000 gives 364000 tons
  Pure BS!

    wow just how bad is the B17
Great as it turns out!

 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/14/2013 4:00:23 PM

OBNW; Ferry range is not effective combat radius, as measured by air hours.
But what it does mean is that there is X amount of gas still left to burn in the B-17's tanks when the Lancaster runs dry! And that amount of gas "X" is sufficient for a B-17 to fly 900 miles.
I still have not heard of any Lanc raid that flew with bombs to a range of 2,200 miles round trip air miles that the B-17 flew to Trondhiem and back. ( 912 Miles Great Circle distance!) In fact, I've neaver heard of any Lancaster Mission that flew 912 Air Miles each way.
But I am always eager to learn, if any of you know of such a mission, please post same for all to see.
well how about the the raids on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troms%C3%B8">
Tromsø
The point of the link you post is that the Tirpitz was sunk just south of the city! What you do not state is that the lancaster flew that mission with stripped planes loaded to take off weights of 72,000 pounds FROM SCOTLAND!
     or maybe the earlier raid tirpitz raid further north?
  Just one question, where was it launched from? RIGHT! I get it. You hate me because I come off as so smug when I am right?

    oh and I love they way you add an extra 300 miles to your raid?
  Not at all! Didn't you know that they launched the American raid from bases west of London and the RAF/Lancaster raids from SCOTLAND? And that the American raid blew almost due north from those bases as the climbed and formed up, then turned East for a total Air Range of just under 2,200 statute miles! 2,200 MILES! RIGHT!



 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/14/2013 4:23:41 PM
with inferior bombing aids, a wash?  Completely true until late war when the US satrted to install Bitish blind bombing equipment and vastly increased thier accuracy
Did you know that we built roughly eight times as many of those blind bombing radars as the British did and installed more of them sooner than the RAF in late 1944/45? So, I would say it was a wash.  
A british invention that the US were forced to use as due to cloud cover they couldn't even see the majority of the targets
 
that could bomb no better, and actually no higher with any accuracy, It was the RAF that stated that less than half the bombs they dropped landed inside the city limits!
Both the USAAF and RAF post war surveys agree that agaisnt the SAME target the RAF night bombing by 44 was as accurate as the USAAF
  And all the tonnage dropped before the middle of 1944? Right!

where did I say that, misdirection again trying to wriggle out again I see


 

that exposed more crews to enemy action True! and delivered fewer bombs per sortie, True! is supposed to be the better plane than the Lancaster? Absolutely!
only in Stuarts mind, and dont forget the major reason why the B17 is better, its a US plane and the Lanc is GB so that has to make the B17 better
  It's better because it killed so many less of it's crew members and if flew and faught in the broad day light! Just those two things alone are more than enough to make it the best bomber of the War in Europe!
 
only in your opinion and we all know how much that is worth

RAF-BC crew KIA >55,000, USAAF bomber crews lost to enemy action < 30,000!
figure already disproved
  Never! Those are the official figures of the Forces conserned! We lost about 50,000 men from all parts of our air force to enemy action, the RAF-BC, not the entire RAF, just the Bomber Command, lost over 55,000! Given that no-one has ever posted a retort to the initial post, I'd be forced to say you lied above!
no they aren't they are ONE set of collated figures that is still disputed but if you check the actual documents you get closer to the 55 than the 37 you claim
and looking at your record in wrong info and misdirection if anyone is lying its you
This despite the obvious great advances made in aircraft design between 1934 and 1937-1941 (Manchester that evolves into the Lancaster) and the demonstrated greater adaptability of the Lancaster to meet changing conditions? And in the same time, the B-17A/B/C/D TURNED into the B-17 E/F/G which was in most ways a completely different plane than the early versions!
wrong, if you look their is actually not that much difference between the D and E other than the tail and weaponary the bomb bay which is what we are discussing was exactly the same between all models

secondly we are only considering the F/G anyway.
    The E/F/G was a newer plane than the Lancaster which was little changed from the start and with the exception of the wing stretch and extra engines. IE the fuse was unchanged in any major way!    
the basic B17 was an older design and was a dead end it was basically a airliner with bombs no a properly designed bomber     
 
the wing redesign was for the change to 4 engines from 2 even though the 4 weren't that much more powerfull then the 2 (but were much more reliable the Manchester engines had a 150 hour overhaul schedule)
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/14/2013 4:24:39 PM

But what it does mean is that there is X amount of gas still left to burn in the B-17's tanks when the Lancaster runs dry! And that amount of gas "X" is sufficient for a B-17 to fly 900 miles.
I still have not heard of any Lanc raid that flew with bombs to a range of 2,200 miles round trip air miles that the B-17 flew to Trondhiem and back. ( 912 Miles Great Circle distance!) In fact, I've neaver heard of any Lancaster Mission that flew 912 Air Miles each way.
But I am always eager to learn, if any of you know of such a mission, please post same for all to see.
 
 The mission to Trondhiem (I guess he means the bombing one and not the leaflet dropping one) dropped maximum 4000lbs/aircarft at 15000ft in 43 YES! Absolutely true! But it was 2,200 miles round trip! OOPS, I forgot to add "Almost" to the prior sentance just to be perfectly accurate!
  So far I havent found a Lancaster mision to Trondheim but I have found an earlier BC mission in May 42 when Wellingtons dropped 4000lbs/Aircraft loads fom 14000ft (I discouned the Hampdens attacking the Tripitz with 1500lbs torpedoes as that would just make the some of the B17 with 2000lbs loads look bad)
So, there are three points; 1. The B-17 that carried only 2000 pounds was the B/C/D variants. 2. the Lancaster and the missions above were all flown from Scotland and were little more than half the distance that the American B-17s flew! 3. This illistrates the altitude factor well!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/14/2013 4:28:36 PM

and just a final word, from a gentleman who has been collating BC losses and causalties for the last 40 years
"By the end of the war, RAF Bomber Command had flown 372,650 sorties and
lost 8,617 aircraft and 47,268 aircrew"
My only question is why do his numbers differ from those of the RAF/BC?
I lied, I have two questions. How does this change the fact that the RAF-BC lost roughly TWICE as many crew members as the USAAF in about half as many sorties? 
 



 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics