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
45-Shooter       2/26/2013 3:46:11 PM

You did say it.


There, I said it.


 


B.


 

Really? Can you post a link to same, or are you just sucking smoke from my asstute posts?
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Wrong answer.   2/26/2013 4:05:00 PM
MY credibility is not on trial, here. Stuart, since you've lied, stolen other people's ideas, twisted the facts and just about did everything short of rape the truth.  
 
You want to prove your innocence? Prove it.
 
You can't. It's that simple. 
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/27/2013 7:32:21 PM

MY credibility is not on trial, here.  Yes it is! You made the statement, now proove it!
B.

 

You have also called me a lier WO showing proof on several different times. I do not care. Honestly! I do not care. I know what I have said and written, which pictures and sources I have posted and what those refferances show.
The bomb bay is over 8' wide, split in half length wise and over 8' tall. The bottoms of said racks are over 42" wide at the bottom and almost 30" at the very top. You figure out how much clearance there is for a bomb, or several of them that are only 34" in diameter.

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/4/2013 7:53:58 PM

What I did say that at an MTO of ~23,000 pounds the range was just less than 1,100 miles and that the range from the air fields was about 1,050 miles from base to Berlin and back to base!
actually thats flying a direct route which never happened so its a bit longer than 525 miles so it looks like the RAF lied about these missions or you are wrong
  Not at all. You obviously have no clew about actual air navigation and the air miles flown on those missions!
But much more importantly, the mission you posit was flown by Mossies that had little relation to the plane described in that manual
hardly little relationship 90% comonality and thats between a fighter bombe and a unarmed bomber

  No, the later Mk-VIs and Mk-35s were very different from the FB and Mk-VI that that manual applied to. The engines were different, the bomb bay doors were bulged and there was more/different tankage.


but these wernt later MKVIs were they so thats a pointless argument, No, they were Mk-35s. the later buldge bays were for the 4000lbs (and were retrofited to earlier aircraft as it wasnt much work) they did find that the earlier model was of handle to fly which the two stage merlins extra length countered however they fitted piggyback racks to the mossie which up the conventional load to 6x 500lbs which was flown to berlin, Was that the propossed 6X500 Lbs in the bomb bay, or the four in the bay and one on each wing at the same hard point that held the Drop tanks? the bombers and fighter had exactly the same tankage No, they did not. See your own pilots manual. the only diffence being that the FB could have a bomb bay tank (the PR mossie was the only other model to have this facility)
  So you think an extra fuel tank has little differance to range?
and had MTOs of 25,000 pounds and a special "Long Range Tank" in the fuse above but not in  the bomb bay!
actually it was IN the bomb bay and was located aft of the 20mm breaches
  NO! that was a different tank to the one in later Mk-VIs and Mk-35s.



yet somehow they managed to bomb Danzig (which to remind you is only 30 miles from the FockerWulf plant that consituted the USAAF furthest raid of the war) What about the shuttle raids?
But the most important question about that raid is that which you have not posted! How many and how heavy were the bombs that they used? Also, did those exact planes have the bulged bomb bay doors or not?
well looking it would seem that danzig was hit by mossies a few times with both 4x500lbs and 4000lbs so it would look like it didnt matter
  Yes, it does matter because the plane that were fitted with the buldged doors were those block numbers with the larger tanks. So it might be possible to bomb Berlin/Danzig with the plane with the lesser tankage with 4X500s but not with the 4000 pounders and the same targets with the strengthened landing gear and larger tanks with the 4000 pound bomb planes. 

So the details are important.

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/4/2013 7:55:35 PM

You did say it.


There, I said it.


 


B.


 

Not worth the effort to reply!

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/5/2013 7:05:40 AM
What I did say that at an MTO of ~23,000 pounds the range was just less than 1,100 miles and that the range from the air fields was about 1,050 miles from base to Berlin and back to base!
actually thats flying a direct route which never happened so its a bit longer than 525 miles so it looks like the RAF lied about these missions or you are wrong      
  Not at all. You obviously have no clew about actual air navigation and the air miles flown on those missions!
But much more importantly, the mission you posit was flown by Mossies that had little relation to the plane described in that manual       
hardly little relationship 90% comonality and thats between a fighter bombe and a unarmed bomber

  No, the later Mk-VIs and Mk-35s were very different from the FB and Mk-VI that that manual applied to. The engines were different, the bomb bay doors were bulged and there was more/different tankage.
have you a source for this as I can find NO source that states the Mossies had different tankage between models other than the FB having the option of an extra bomb bay tank

but these wernt later MKVIs were they so thats a pointless argument, No, they were Mk-35s. the later buldge bays were for the 4000lbs (and were retrofited to earlier aircraft as it wasnt much work) they did find that the earlier model was of handle to fly which the two stage merlins extra length countered however they fitted piggyback racks to the mossie which up the conventional load to 6x 500lbs which was flown to berlin, Was that the propossed 6X500 Lbs in the bomb bay, or the four in the bay and one on each wing at the same hard point that held the Drop tanks? 
6x 500lb in the bomb bay on 2 level racks and not proposed but actually used
 
the bombers and fighter had exactly the same tankage No, they did not. See your own pilots manual. the only diffence being that the FB could have a bomb bay tank (the PR mossie was the only other model to have this facility)      
  So you think an extra fuel tank has little differance to range?
 
and had MTOs of 25,000 pounds and a special "Long Range Tank" in the fuse above but not in  the bomb bay!     
actually it was IN the bomb bay and was located aft of the 20mm breaches      
  NO! that was a different tank to the one in later Mk-VIs and Mk-35s.
no the bombers had the same fuel tankage as the fighter except the option of the bomb bay tank

 

yeah right your infallible insight again contradicting all other sources with evidence

yet somehow they managed to bomb Danzig (which to remind you is only 30 miles from the FockerWulf plant that consituted the USAAF furthest raid of the war) What about the shuttle raids?
what about them? they may have BOMBED targets further away but the overall raid was shorter

But the most important question about that raid is that which you have not posted! How many and how heavy were the bombs that they used? Also, did those exact planes have the bulged bomb bay doors or not?
 
well as some of those planes carried 4000lbs and that needed the bulged bays what do you think?
well looking it would seem that danzig was hit by mossies a few times with both 4x500lbs and 4000lbs so it would look like it didnt matter      
  Yes, it does matter because the plane that were fitted with the buldged doors were those block numbers with the larger tanks.
what larger tanks>
 So it might be possible to bomb Berlin/Danzig with the plane with the lesser tankage with 4X500s but not with the 4000 pounders and the same targets with the strengthened landing gear and larger tanks with the 4000 pound bomb planes. 
 
of your fictitious version eh? but surely it doesn't matter as IT DID DO IT bottom line is that the mossie took 4000lbs to a target within 30 miles of the longest ranged B17 mission
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/6/2013 12:15:30 AM

the plane described in that manual       
of your fictitious version eh? but surely it doesn't matter as IT DID DO IT bottom line is that the mossie took 4000lbs to a target within 30 miles of the longest ranged B17 mission
So how does this apply to the Lanc Vs B-17 side of the debate? No Lanc ever flew that mission with any weight of bombs! I agree, the mossy was a good substitute for the Lanc. Note that I have said this before!

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/6/2013 2:47:53 AM
It doesnt but you were claiming .... oh I give up its like educating pork
 
 
oh and the same target was bombed by Lancs and Halfax's by the way the lancs carried mixtures of bombs the usual load being 12000lbs I can find no source that has any of the lancs at less than 10000lbs except mine laying missions which were 8000lbs
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/6/2013 10:43:59 PM

oh and the same target was bombed by Lancs and Halfax's by the way the lancs carried mixtures of bombs the usual load being 12000lbs I can find no source that has any of the lancs at less than 10000lbs except mine laying missions which were 8000lbs

The fact that the mission profiles chosen for the two forces, RAF-USAAF resulted in two vastly different tonnage profiles should be expected and is easily explained.
1. The two planes, Lancaster-B-17, had about the same MTO. (65,000-65,500 pounds.)
2. The two planes had about the same ability to lift a heavy load. ( 18,000-17,600 pounds) 
3. The B-17 could carry more fuel.
4. The B-17 was the one with the better EEW/MTO, L/D, higher aspect ratio and more efficient engines.
 Given the above facts we can make several conclusions;
1. If the mission profiles had been the same, the B-17 could have carried more weight of bombs to a farther range.
2. If the Lancaster had been required to fly the B-17's mission profile, it could not cary as many bombs as far!
3. The Lancaster was not cappable of reaching B-17 cieling because of the lack of high efficiency-high altitude supercharger system, it's higher EEW and lower Aspect Ratio wings.
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Given Stuart's mistatements.   3/6/2013 10:52:31 PM
Just about mean take off weights and engine efficiencies, we can discount every other false statement he made based on his lies.
 
B.
 
 
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