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
Jabberwocky       3/10/2013 11:16:01 PM
Some data from the British Bombing Survey Unit
 
Lancasters dropped 581,270 short tons during WW2.
 
The average bomb load for the Lancaster was 9,186 lbs (not, 7,795 lbs).
 
The Lancaster Mk I had a maximum bombload of 15,000 lbs. With this load, it had a range of 1350 miles.
Its maximum range was 1850 miles, with a bombload of 11,000 lbs.
 
The average bombload per sortie of the USAAF heavies was:
 
1942: 2,600 lbs
1943: 3,220
1944: 3,960
1945: 4,750
 
The number of heavy bombers available to Bomber Command (Lanc/Halifax/Stirling) and VIII AF (B-17 & B-24):
Jan-1943: 551: 156
Jul-1943:  975: 670
Jan-1944: 1139: 1667
Jul-1944: 1463: 3645
Jan-1945: 1627: 3115
Jul-1945: 1708: 3300
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/11/2013 2:44:17 PM

Some data from the British Bombing Survey Unit
Lancasters dropped 581,270 short tons during WW2. This is very different than the "Facts" that you find posted on-line and published in so many books. But I do not worry about it as it is well with-in the rage of probable figures.
The average bomb load for the Lancaster was 9,186 lbs (not, 7,795 lbs).
Beat against the above number, I get 126,556 sorties? While this makes the "Average bomb load substantialy heavier, it also reduces the total number of sorties??? What do you think of these things?
The Lancaster Mk I had a maximum bombload of 15,000 lbs. With this load, it had a range of 1350 miles. Its maximum range was 1850 miles, with a bombload of 11,000 lbs. 
  All this time, I thought that the late war production could carry 18 X 1,000 pound bombs, IF they had short fins, but only 14 if they were normal long fin bombs. Acording to this factiod, the Lanc is now 2,600 pounds short of the load the B-17 could lift.
The average bombload per sortie of the USAAF heavies was:
1942: 2,600 lbs 1943: 3,220 1944: 3,960
1945: 4,750
This sounds like it is about the same, or a little more or less than the figures I have quoted from Ray Wagoner's book.
The number of heavy bombers available to Bomber Command (Lanc/Halifax/Stirling) and VIII AF (B-17 & B-24):
Jan-1943: 551: 156 (100,282-28,392) Plane-Days RAF heavies-USAAF heavies.
Jul-1943:  975: 670 (177,450-121,940)
Jan-1944: 1139: 1667 (207,298-303,394)
Jul-1944: 1463: 3645 (266,266-663,390)
Jan-1945: 1627: 3115 (296,114-566,930)
Jul-1945: 1708: 3300 (310,856-600,600) Totals = (1,047,410-1,684,046 Plane days)
I find these numbers to be most interesting! Think about how many sorties the USAAF flew in Europe with how many planes? Use the numbers above and devide the average bomb load by the published numbers of planes on hand above, or the numbers posted in Ray Wagoner's book, or any other book for that matter.
My big question is; How did so many planes fly so many missions and drop so many bombs, given the above numbers of "Average" bomb tonnage per plane? So given the rough comp of bombs dropped durring the entire war by both sides is close to porportional to the plane days above and the Lanc could cary twice as many bombs per mission, at least on "Average". Therefore, the B-17 had to fly about twice as many missions per plane day in order to reach the published totals of bombs dropped in the War time? Just currious?
Can anyone here think of more different ways to look at these figures?

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/11/2013 3:53:17 PM
  All this time, I thought that the late war production could carry 18 X 1,000 pound bombs, IF they had short fins, but only 14 if they were normal long fin bombs. Acording to this factiod, the Lanc is now 2,600 pounds short of the load the B-17 could lift.
 
except that the Lancaster could and did lift 22000lbs yet whilst the B17 might have been able to carry 17600 it NEVER DID,
 
and as that 15000lbs could be carried to long range and the B17 if loaded with 17600lbs would have been lucky to reach Calais
 
and as the radio control bomb version of the B17 only carried 20000lbs and that had a crew of 2 with NO guns or turrets no co pilot seat, oxygen, armour, vastly reduced fuel load in fact every thing they could remove and it still couldn't get above 12000ft
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/11/2013 4:18:44 PM
This sounds like it is about the same, or a little more or less than the figures I have quoted from Ray Wagoner's book.    
The number of heavy bombers available to Bomber Command (Lanc/Halifax/Stirling) and VIII AF (B-17 & B-24):
Jan-1943: 551: 156 (100,282-28,392) Plane-Days RAF heavies-USAAF heavies.
Jul-1943:  975: 670 (177,450-121,940)
Jan-1944: 1139: 1667 (207,298-303,394)
Jul-1944: 1463: 3645 (266,266-663,390)
Jan-1945: 1627: 3115 (296,114-566,930)
Jul-1945: 1708: 3300 (310,856-600,600) Totals = (1,047,410-1,684,046 Plane days)
     I find these numbers to be most interesting! Think about how many sorties the USAAF flew in Europe with how many planes? Use the numbers above and devide the average bomb load by the published numbers of planes on hand above, or the numbers posted in Ray Wagoner's book, or any other book for that matter.    
if you look at the figures it is clear that the US had far more bomber available late in the war when defences were weakest and more bombers available = more sorties especially as the US had multiple crews per plane whilst the RAF didn't have that pool of manpower available, so actual plane days are not comparable

My big question is; How did so many planes fly so many missions and drop so many bombs, given the above numbers of "Average" bomb tonnage per plane? So given the rough comp of bombs dropped durring the entire war by both sides is close to porportional to the plane days above and the Lanc could cary twice as many bombs per mission, at least on "Average". Therefore, the B-17 had to fly about twice as many missions per plane day in order to reach the published totals of bombs dropped in the War time? Just currious?
no it means (and this is obvious really) that the US ran more sorties over the later months, as the B17 were used for a lot of fairly short ranged missions they could afford to run them at shorter intervals despite the b17 having engines that lasted a fraction of the hours of the Merlin's and as from early 44 onwards they HAD twice the number of heavies available, also you need to check the loss rates of B17 it tends to show a big difference in losses depending on missions, it goes from zero on attacks in france to huge losses when attacking places like Berlin
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/11/2013 4:31:43 PM

All this time, I thought that the late war production could carry 18 X 1,000 pound bombs, IF they had short fins, but only 14 if they were normal long fin bombs. Acording to this factiod, the Lanc is now 2,600 pounds short of the load the B-17 could lift.
except that the Lancaster could and did lift 22000lbs yet whilst the B17 might have been able to carry 17600 it NEVER DID,
So now, you state that the 33 "Specials" were the standard by which we should judge ALL Lancs?
and as that 15000lbs could be carried to long range and the B17 if loaded with 17600lbs would have been lucky to reach Calais
  How do you equate operational weight with ceiling? How much bomb load and fuel does the Lancaster have to offload to make it to 30,000' altitude over the target!
nd as the radio control bomb version of the B17 only carried 20000lbs and that had a crew of 2 with NO guns or turrets no co pilot seat, oxygen, armour, vastly reduced fuel load in fact every thing they could remove and it still couldn't get above 12000ft
That means that it carried about twice as much HE as the GrandSlam??? But wait, the grandslam was a special bomb dropped from a special plane that was WO guns, could not get above 17,000' and had up-rated engines of 1,710 HP and could barely fly to Bienfield and back? And this is different from your case above how?




 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/11/2013 4:51:23 PM

Jan-1943: 551: 156 (100,282-28,392) Plane-Days RAF heavies-USAAF heavies.
Jul-1943:  975: 670 (177,450-121,940)
Jan-1944: 1139: 1667 (207,298-303,394)
Jul-1944: 1463: 3645 (266,266-663,390)
Jan-1945: 1627: 3115 (296,114-566,930)
Jul-1945: 1708: 3300 (310,856-600,600) Totals = (1,047,410-1,684,046 Plane days)
     I find these numbers to be most interesting! Think about how many sorties the USAAF flew in Europe with how many planes? Use the numbers above and devide the average bomb load by the published numbers of planes on hand above, or the numbers posted in Ray Wagoner's book, or any other book for that matter.    
if you look at the figures it is clear that the US had far more bomber available late in the war when defences were weakest and more bombers available = more sorties especially as the US had multiple crews per plane whilst the RAF didn't have that pool of manpower available, so actual plane days are not comparable See the bomber-day figures above! They clearly show that the USAAF was able to fly over twice as many sorties per bomber day as the RAF! They carried less weight of bombs, so had to fly more missions to amass over 60% more total bomb tonnage as the RAF! 1Mt to 1.6Mt total bomb tonnage in Europe!

My big question is; How did so many planes fly so many missions and drop so many bombs, given the above numbers of "Average" bomb tonnage per plane? So given the rough comp of bombs dropped durring the entire war by both sides is close to porportional to the plane days above and the Lanc could cary twice as many bombs per mission, at least on "Average". Therefore, the B-17 had to fly about twice as many missions per plane day in order to reach the published totals of bombs dropped in the War time? Just currious?
no it means (and this is obvious really) that the US ran more sorties over the later months, as the B17 were used for a lot of fairly short ranged missions they could afford to run them at shorter intervals despite the b17 having engines that lasted a fraction of the hours of the Merlin's ??? The Cyclone was TBO'd at 800 hours at a time when War time Merlins did not Average 150 Hours TBO!  and as from early 44 onwards they HAD twice the number of heavies available, also you need to check the loss rates of B17 it tends to show a big difference in losses depending on missions, it goes from zero on attacks in france to huge losses when attacking places like Berlin
So many defective logic trains! The Wright Cyclone was TBO'd at over 800 hours as shown on millions of sorties in B-17s, C-47s F4s, etc! Post war, much derated Merlins were TBO'd at 3-400 hours! See Janes all the worlds Aircraft 1949 where it lists all Merlin variants. Yet you claim that the Cyclone, which is still flying in paid schedualed service to this very day and no-one has flown a Merlin in coml service in almost FIFTY YEARS! Yea RIGHT! 
Regardless of the above, how do you explain the vast differances in the number of sorties flown in the number of bomber-days availible, which by the way appiers to mirror the total bomb tonnage dropped? Because the American bomb tonnages are about half of those of the RAF per sortie, they had to fly twice as many missions to get the same tonnage over target in the same number of Bomber-days availible!
There is no rational and honest answer to these questions, other than those shown here. The B-17/24/etc had about twice the service availibility as the RAF Heavies with their Merlin Engines and there is no other answer but that! That let them fly twice as many missions per any given time.

 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/11/2013 5:37:20 PM
All this time, I thought that the late war production could carry 18 X 1,000 pound bombs, IF they had short fins, but only 14 if they were normal long fin bombs. Acording to this factiod, the Lanc is now 2,600 pounds short of the load the B-17 could lift.
except that the Lancaster could and did lift 22000lbs yet whilst the B17 might have been able to carry 17600 it NEVER DID,              
  So now, you state that the 33 "Specials" were the standard by which we should judge ALL Lancs?
 
why not you are using a B17 weight that was never used operationally your weight is TWICE the maximum recorded bombload of any B17 mission
and as that 15000lbs could be carried to long range and the B17 if loaded with 17600lbs would have been lucky to reach Calais      
  How do you equate operational weight with ceiling? How much bomb load and fuel does the Lancaster have to offload to make it to 30,000' altitude over the target!
 
and why would it? it wasn't designed to fly at 30000feet as Bomber Command had tried that and it didn't work
 
nd as the radio control bomb version of the B17 only carried 20000lbs and that had a crew of 2 with NO guns or turrets no co pilot seat, oxygen, armour, vastly reduced fuel load in fact every thing they could remove and it still couldn't get above 12000ft      
That means that it carried about twice as much HE as the GrandSlam???
yes but without any casing it was just bags of torpex so bigger blast but less penetrating power
 
 But wait, the grandslam was a special bomb dropped from a special plane that was WO guns, could not get above 17,000' and had up-rated engines of 1,710 HP and could barely fly to Bienfield and back? And this is different from your case above how?
 
it happened whilst the B17 missions were all cancelled as being to dangerous for little end result (the smaller 9000lbs versions that did get used clearly showed that)  oh and the Grand slam Lancaster did have a tail turret and a crew of 5 that flew all the way there and back not bailing out as soon as it reached altitude so I would say it was a bit different would you?  and 800miles as the crow flies is not exactly short is it even the longest raid of the Aphrodite op was only half that (the targets weren't actually that far apart)
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/11/2013 5:52:21 PM
if you look at the figures it is clear that the US had far more bomber available late in the war when defences were weakest and more bombers available = more sorties especially as the US had multiple crews per plane whilst the RAF didn't have that pool of manpower available, so actual plane days are not comparable See the bomber-day figures above! They clearly show that the USAAF was able to fly over twice as many sorties per bomber day as the RAF! They carried less weight of bombs, so had to fly more missions to amass over 60% more total bomb tonnage as the RAF! 1Mt to 1.6Mt total bomb tonnage in Europe!    
 
just deduct the light and medium figures so we can compare like with like to start with and then think WHEN they did these raids! and its not per day as that's misleading as this would result in a number much less than one

My big question is; How did so many planes fly so many missions and drop so many bombs, given the above numbers of "Average" bomb tonnage per plane? So given the rough comp of bombs dropped durring the entire war by both sides is close to porportional to the plane days above and the Lanc could cary twice as many bombs per mission, at least on "Average". Therefore, the B-17 had to fly about twice as many missions per plane day in order to reach the published totals of bombs dropped in the War time? Just currious?
 
no your trying to make a point and failing
and its not per day as that's misleading as this would result in a number much less than one
  that lasted a fraction of the hours of the Merlin's   
     ??? The Cyclone was TBO'd at 800 hours at a time when War time Merlins did not Average 150 Hours TBO!  
 
ha what rubbish, the TBO of the Cyclone on the B17F/G was 500hours and it rarely achieved that, the Memphis Belle when doing the warbond tour only averaged 300 hours between engine replacement, yet the 150 hour figure for the merlin was not replacement but for service which was an in airframe operation
     
So many defective logic trains!
so you cannot think of anything complex then, if its not simple you get lost?
 
The Wright Cyclone was TBO'd at over 800 hours as shown on millions of sorties in B-17s, C-47s F4s, etc!
 
if you had read the 15ton flying fortress you would have found that it was not the case (and as the F4 didn't fly 15 tons at 20000ft+) oh and the C47 didn't even use Cyclones they sensibly used P&W
 
Post war, much derated Merlins were TBO'd at 3-400 hours! See Janes all the worlds Aircraft 1949 where it lists all Merlin variants. Yet you claim that the Cyclone, which is still flying in paid schedualed service to this very day and no-one has flown a Merlin in coml service in almost FIFTY YEARS! Yea RIGHT! 
 
who is using the cyclone in service certainly not in DC3 or C47s that's for certain

Regardless of the above, how do you explain the vast differances in the number of sorties flown in the number of bomber-days availible, which by the way appiers to mirror the total bomb tonnage dropped? Because the American bomb tonnages are about half of those of the RAF per sortie, they had to fly twice as many missions to get the same tonnage over target in the same number of Bomber-days availible!
There is no rational and honest answer to these questions, other than those shown here. The B-17/24/etc had about twice the service availibility as the RAF Heavies with their Merlin Engines and there is no other answer but that! That let them fly twice as many missions per any given time.
 
no it doesn't as clearly shown the USAAF had twice the number of bombers so would only need a similar  availability rate to achieve the 2:1 then you take into account that crew availability was greater for the US and you end up with different conclusions
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc    Wright R-1820   3/11/2013 8:41:04 PM
 
Failure modes.
 
 
Radials: hows, whats, and whys.
 
Pratt & Whitney R-1830 about 1000 hours.
 
Wright R-1820 < 500 hours.
 
Bristol Pegs about 2000 hours.
 
Of the 3 the Pratt and Whitneys had the least trouble with oil, fires, thrown rods, and metal contamination. But they did wear out rapidly and have to be rebuilt.
 
Wrights on a DC-3.
 
 
Note the extensive warnings about hydrolocks and FIRES.
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/11/2013 11:38:00 PM

How do you equate operational weight with ceiling? How much bomb load and fuel does the Lancaster have to offload to make it to 30,000' altitude over the target!
and why would it? it wasn't designed to fly at 30000feet as Bomber Command had tried that and it didn't work
  To at least try to save the extra  25-30,000 RAF-BC crewmwn who died as compaired to the USAAF missions which flew in a higher threat environment more times to drop more tons of bombs on NAZI targets for fewer casualties?
 
it happened whilst the B17 missions were all cancelled as being to dangerous for little end result (the smaller 9000lbs versions that did get used clearly showed that)  oh and the Grand slam Lancaster did have a tail turret and a crew of 5 that flew all the way there and back not bailing out as soon as it reached altitude so I would say it was a bit different would you?  and 800miles as the crow flies is not exactly short is it even the longest raid of the Aphrodite op was only half that (the targets weren't actually that far apart)
  But it is not 800 miles as the crow flies! Have you failed to understand after all this time that range is the absolute still air distance the plane is capable of flying while dropping the bomb(s) at the half way mark? After subtracting the emergency reserve of at least 45 minutes, if not twice that, the form up and distance lost in turns and climb, the true radius of action, IE, the distance from base at which they can actually drop a bomb on something is typically about 35-40% of those 800 miles! Ie, an "Effective" Range of 280-320 miles. Not so impressive when it is spelled out like that is it. That is the single largest differance between American and British "Range" figures! 

PS. Also, no Grand Slam mission was ever flown WO fighter escort!

 
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