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       3/26/2013 8:48:50 AM
I didn't even try, actual Lancaster blueprints are not afaik available online, and the artist exploded drawings of the Lancasters are far to big a scale to show them however they are there as many stated in documents and personnel recollections
A link to some would be nice, just one would be acceptable.
You will get it the day after you provide links for the following
1, b1 with 4 2000lbs
2, b17 with 4000lbs intenally
3, B17 with 34 440lbs
Untill then try looking for it your self
 
Given the possible and sudden PIO and near instantainious destruction of the plane caused by excessive aft CoG, it sounds entirely possible to me!
then you are thick

How else can you explain the >55,000 RAF-BC losses? Lancasters alone accounted for more deaths than the entire USAAF heavy bomber's crew losses.
 
I have but as it doesnt fit your pet theory it is ignored you would much prefer to recycle the same discedited rubbish time and time again

I can explain that those crews were flying into the worst flak concentrations of the war, against the best night fighter  force of the war So you claim that night fighters are as dangerous as day fighters? RIGHT! So dangerous that 1/8th as many Nighyt Fighters are more dangerous that eight times as many day fighters who have no trouble seeing what they are shooting at! If this was even remotely so, why didn't the RAF-BC choose to operate in the broad day light where it would have been so much safer? RIGHT!
OK ONE LAST TIME, the USAAF flew less dangerous missions, flying the same missions during the day as the Lancs did at night resulted in much higher casuaties for the USAAF even with heavy fighter escorts That is the LAST time I am going to lower myself to resond to this ridiculous statement you keep curning out, if you cannot see the flaw in your argument by now then thier is no hope for you
That is B-17s, B-24s, B-29s and ALL of the smaller Medium Bombers too!
talk sense
I am, the entire USAAF lost about 52,000 crewmen. Of that 52K, a little under half were bomber crews!
You base this on the fact that the USAAF lost about the same number of planes, but those losses were 80% less dangerous to their crews because the RAF's targets were so much more dangerous? RIGHT! This is silly on it's face!
What that more dangerous targets result in higher casulties?
 
 
When a RAF Heavy went down, less than 11% of the crew escaped, IIRC! What kind of catastrophic event could cause the plane to explode so quickly that no-one gets out?
Shows how little of the night air war Shooter actually understands
I would counter with the idea that the Lancaster has two problems. 1. They flew so much lower than American heavies during the day that they took much higher losses to flack.
Firstly its FLAK not flack who is a singer I would think after all this time you could get that basic fact straight
2, as the Flak defenses could reach to the celing of the B17 and the average height of B17 mission was 23000' I call rubbish on this, especially when the targets the B17 are sent against have <10% of the flak defnses as those the Lanc is sent
 
2. It was a much less robust plane and succumbed to much less damage than even the B-24!
So You say but have NEVER provided any proof just your feelings on the issue, I have however shown that the B17 was weaker than then the Lanc
 
As a seperate issue, it only had the very porest escape system.
Yes night escape is so much harder than day and the lancs 4 escape hatches were small
 
 , so I will go with the designers and history which at this time does not seem to regard your idea as even worth considering

Fine by me. Why don't you come up with a theory that explains why the RAF lost so many more crew and planes per sortie than the USAAF?
 
What like target allocation? its not like bombing the ruhr was mone dangerous than small French airfields is it?
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/26/2013 9:01:21 AM
The Lancaster was barrel rolled at slow speed during a test flight.
The Barrel Roll is a positive G maneuver! How does this demonstrate ability to survive a NEGITIVE G maneuver?
and why does it matter? you say this as if the b17 could survive a negative G manoeuvre, face it the Lancaster could survive manoeuvres that would a have pulled wings off a B17
Maybe! I do not know what the exact load limits of either plane is! What I do know is that no Lancaster RTB'd with half as much damage to it as any of a hundred B-17s and a few B-24s!
You know nothing of the sort, you think that it is the case based on lack of photos despite being told that cameras were rare on RAF bases,  but we have shown ypou that the Lancaster was allowed to dive 100mph faster than the B17, the lancaster was also built for catapult launch not something a B17 could survive 
Note that the Flying Fortress cannot be safely barrel rolled with a bomb load?
Why not? It is a positive G maneuver and almost any polane CAN do it!!!   
Any aircraft with sufficent reseerve of power can that is true, but a b17 is far more likely to exceed its perfoemance limits and if you do thatyou go from a 2g manoeuver to a 6-9g one in a split second, thier is a REASON why its a manoeuver that will get a bit jets pilot gounded  
 
you are a joke, if you honestly believe this you are showing exactly how little you know, not all aircraft can perform a barrel roll and for a big aircraft to do it is unusual and is a sign of a good design which is why it is so noteworthy
No, it is you who do not have a clue! Did you even look at the article I re-posted about exactly what and how a barrel roll is done!
 
I did but that is a perfect roll with a machine with enough reserve of power to maintain the attitude something lacking in all WW2 heavies, a B17 is not a a 707 or a unloaded C130 (and if a squadron pilot rolled a C130 he would be flying  adesk for the rest of his carrier, it the reserve of test pilots and the Blue angels)
 
Source! because this is a lie, Alex Henshaw who tested more Spitfires than anybody else never used such word in OFFICAL documents, he did say these things in interviews and in conversations (and even his book) but if you read his actual test reports he states "satisfactory"
Nobody ever stated those things about Lancs in press conferances, why not?
 
because its a BOMBER oh and actually word like that were used to descib the vey first fllight of the Lancaster if you look
 
 
I did, My relation who flies C130, his view was that in a 1940s vintage aircraft a barrel roll was pushing the envelope and would certainly be banned if in peacetime because of the stress it exerts on the airframe, to do it with a full bomb load he reckons would require a something special in both plane and pilot
Maybe! I suspect that the Pilot's Manual for the B-17 was a great deal more detailed than that of the Lancaster given to the first crews to fly it in service! Boeing is famous for their documentation. I've never heard of a Pilot's Manual for an early Lancaster published before it was put into service!
 
No pilot manual for the early lancaster? so what were the pilots supposed to guess what did what and what setting were required for takeoff/landing, you are just getting stupid now
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/26/2013 10:49:50 PM

How else can you explain the >55,000 RAF-BC losses? Lancasters alone accounted for more deaths than the entire USAAF heavy bomber's crew losses.

I can explain that those crews were flying into the worst flak concentrations of the war, against the best night fighter  force of the war So you claim that night fighters are as dangerous as day fighters? RIGHT! So dangerous that 1/8th as many Nighyt Fighters are more dangerous that eight times as many day fighters who have no trouble seeing what they are shooting at! If this was even remotely so, why didn't the RAF-BC choose to operate in the broad day light where it would have been so much safer? RIGHT AGAIN!
OK ONE LAST TIME, the USAAF flew less dangerous missions, how on earth can they be less dangerous when there are fewer people in fighter planes shooting at them and it is dark to boot! flying the same missions during the day as the Lancs did at night resulted in much higher casuaties for the USAAF even with heavy fighter escorts So you continue to think this in spite of what the RAF said to the contrarry! 
I am, the entire USAAF lost about 52,000 crewmen. Of that 52K, a little under half were bomber crews!
You base this on the fact that the USAAF lost about the same number of planes, but those losses were 80% less dangerous to their crews because the RAF's targets were so much more dangerous? RIGHT! This is silly on it's face!
What that more dangerous targets result in higher casulties?
This entire line of argument is falacious on it's face! Night missions were very much safer than day light missions regardless of which targets were hit! The RAF said so! Don't you believe the RAF? 
 
I would counter with the idea that the Lancaster has two problems. 1. They flew so much lower than American heavies during the day that they took much higher losses to flak.
as the Flak defenses could reach to the celing of the B17 and the average height of B17 mission was 23000' I call rubbish on this, Then you are ignorant of the facts! Flak effectivness is INVERSELY GEOMETRICALY porportional to altitude! The lower you are, the deadlier it gets as the square of the differance in altitude! Example; Altitude 23,000' Vs 16,000' = 207% more effective! especially when the targets the B17 are sent against have <10% of the flak defnses as those the Lanc is sent But when the B-17 is sent to the SAME TARGET, the casualties are predominently from day fighters! But at night, the Lancaster's casualties are predominently from Flak and it is much more effective because they are lower and thus closser to the guns tremendously shortening the shell's Time of Flight!
 
2. It was a much less robust plane and succumbed to much less damage than even the B-24!
So You say but have NEVER provided any proof just your feelings on the issue, I have however shown that the B17 was weaker than then the Lanc
Because it was used to do barrel rolls and the B-17 was not? RIGHT! Show me some picks of Lancs with horrendous damage, or go home! 

Fine by me. Why don't you come up with a theory that explains why the RAF lost so many more crew and planes per sortie than the USAAF?
 
What like target allocation? its not like bombing the ruhr was mone dangerous than small French airfields is it?
No, it is not like that at all! Night missions were by ALL accounts very much less dangerous than DAY LIGHT missions! By the sworn testimony of RAF-BC Officers! Any night mission was very much less dangerous than any day light mission to any target! 


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/26/2013 10:58:57 PM

Maybe! I do not know what the exact load limits of either plane is! What I do know is that no Lancaster RTB'd with half as much damage to it as any of a hundred B-17s and a few B-24s!
You know nothing of the sort, you think that it is the case based on lack of photos despite being told that cameras were rare on RAF bases, How about repair, or scrapping reports? the lancaster was also built for catapult launch not something a B17 could survive 
How would you know if it was never tried? Just because a whole un damaged plane can do something, does not meen that a damaged plane can do anything!

    Any aircraft with sufficent reseerve of power can that is true, but a b17 is far more likely to exceed its perfoemance limits and if you do thatyou go from a 2g manoeuver to a 6-9g one in a split second, thier is a REASON why its a manoeuver that will get a bit jets pilot gounded  
  They get grounded for being reckless, not because the plane can not take it!

but that is a perfect roll with a machine with enough reserve of power to maintain the attitude something lacking in all WW2 heavies, a B17 is not a a 707 or a unloaded C130 (and if a squadron pilot rolled a C130 he would be flying  adesk for the rest of his carrier, it the reserve of test pilots and the Blue angels)
Ask you friend who flys C-130s what would happen to that bird if it had a sudden excusion of CG so far aft as the same control ration and CG Range as the Lancaster! Go ahead and ask!
 

 
I did, My relation who flies C130, his view was that in a 1940s vintage aircraft a barrel roll was pushing the envelope and would certainly be banned if in peacetime because of the stress it exerts on the airframe, to do it with a full bomb load he reckons would require a something special in both plane and pilot See above! Ask him what would happen to both his C-130 and the Lancaster if either one had such a large and sudden CG excursion! Go ahead and do it!
Maybe! I suspect that the Pilot's Manual for the B-17 was a great deal more detailed than that of the Lancaster given to the first crews to fly it in service! Boeing is famous for their documentation. I've never heard of a Pilot's Manual for an early Lancaster published before it was put into service!
    No pilot manual for the early lancaster? so what were the pilots supposed to guess what did what and what setting were required for takeoff/landing, you are just getting stupid now
  So show us one with a date before the first Lanc in service!



 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/27/2013 12:18:34 AM
For the one called Shooter.

Do you know what the difference between slant range, maximum effective range, and optimum range is for AAA? For which and what type?

Do you know what angular track velocity is?

Do you know what warning time and engagement time is, and what the difference is?

Do you know what track solution, and lead solution is and what that difference is?

Do you know what contact fire and probability fire is, and which is used when and why?

I doubt that you do. Even if you looked it up it requires a deep understanding of what I ask for you to give me the correct answers.

You will not be able to cut and paste or lie your way through it.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/27/2013 4:07:28 AM
OK ONE LAST TIME, the USAAF flew less dangerous missions, how on earth can they be less dangerous when there are fewer people in fighter planes shooting at them and it is dark to boot!
The Target you moron, if you fly against light defended targets you get less defensive firepower, if the RAF had tried to bomb the Ruhr in daylight the causalries would have been in the 20-30% range as they were when the USAAF tried it (assuming bith had the similar level of fighterescorts) whilst the bombing at night got that down to 6-7%, its realtive or can you not understand that? if you are going to lose 10x as many plane duing a day attack then you are better off attacking at night, and then use your day bombers to attack targets that, if attacked at night, woould have reulted in no losses
 
flying the same missions during the day as the Lancs did at night resulted in much higher casuaties for the USAAF even with heavy fighter escorts So you continue to think this in spite of what the RAF said to the contrarry!
I am, the entire USAAF lost about 52,000 crewmen. Of that 52K, a little under half were bomber crews!
disproved already
 
You base this on the fact that the USAAF lost about the same number of planes, but those losses were 80% less dangerous to their crews because the RAF's targets were so much more dangerous? RIGHT! This is silly on it's face!
What that more dangerous targets result in higher casulties?
This entire line of argument is falacious on it's face! Night missions were very much safer than day light missions regardless of which targets were hit! The RAF said so! Don't you believe the RAF?
The RAF dont say so it just you that dont understand the basics
 as the Flak defenses could reach to the celing of the B17 and the average height of B17 mission was 23000' I call rubbish on this, Then you are ignorant of the facts! Flak effectivness is INVERSELY GEOMETRICALY porportional to altitude!
completely wrong, well not completely  you are finially calling it Flak not flack
 The lower you are, the deadlier it gets as the square of the differance in altitude! Example; Altitude 23,000' Vs 16,000' = 207% more effective!
The only real difference in altitude is the type of flak the lower altitudes bring in the lower calibers ohter wise the altitdue makes little difference 
 
  But at night, the Lancaster's casualties are predominently from Flak and it is much more effective because they are lower and thus closser to the guns tremendously shortening the shell's Time of Flight!
but as this is included in the calculations to start with it has NO bearing on the effectiveness of the flak
and does not explane why so many sources put so much of the loese to night fighters
 
Because it was used to do barrel rolls and the B-17 was not? RIGHT! Show me some picks of Lancs with horrendous damage, or go home!
Show me pictures of a pink orange and green B17, there was one .
as for Lanc Damage   direct you to the "Lancaster at War" series of books
 

Fine by me. Why don't you come up with a theory that explains why the RAF lost so many more crew and planes per sortie than the USAAF?
 
No, it is not like that at all! Night missions were by ALL accounts very much less dangerous than DAY LIGHT missions!
Total rubbish
 
By the sworn testimony of RAF-BC Officers! Any night mission was very much less dangerous than any day light mission to any target!
ONLY WHEN LOOKING AT THE SAME TARGET, get it into your thick skull this time as its the last time I beat my head agaisnt your stupidity, how the hell can bombing a mlk run where they see no flak or fighters be the same as flying into the ruhr? its like saying the Swinefurt raids were the fault of the pilots as it was no more dangerous than bombing a railway juction in France
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/27/2013 4:16:37 AM
 
How would you know if it was never tried? Just because a whole un damaged plane can do something, does not meen that a damaged plane can do anything!
stupid statement

    Any aircraft with sufficent reseerve of power can that is true, but a b17 is far more likely to exceed its perfoemance limits and if you do thatyou go from a 2g manoeuver to a 6-9g one in a split second, thier is a REASON why its a manoeuver that will get a bit jets pilot gounded 
  They get grounded for being reckless, not because the plane can not take it!
stupid statement
--
--
--
but that is a perfect roll with a machine with enough reserve of power to maintain the attitude something lacking in all WW2 heavies, a B17 is not a a 707 or a unloaded C130 (and if a squadron pilot rolled a C130 he would be flying  adesk for the rest of his carrier, it the reserve of test pilots and the Blue angels)
Ask you friend who flys C-130s what would happen to that bird if it had a sudden excusion of CG so far aft as the same control ration and CG Range as the Lancaster! Go ahead and ask!
 
Loaading restrictions apply to all aircraft but they are PROPORTIONAL, if a 1000lbs bomb hanging on the last row was going to cause the plane to become unflyable then one on the NEXT to last row would cause the plane to become difficult to fly, or a 500lbs bomb on a rack further aft would also cause problems, yet no such problems were reported, and it not that sudden as you your self pointed out as if it was then the fact that it was the last row to be released would cause it.
as for my friend the C130 pilot, well as he has airdropped a Striker AFV whilst flying for your airforce he reckons that a large weight to the aft of the CoG is not neccessarialy fatal

ushing the envelope and would certainly be banned if in peacetime because of the stress it exerts on the airframe, to do it with a full bomb load he reckons would require a something special in both plane and pilot See above! Ask him what would happen to both his C-130 and the Lancaster if either one had such a large and sudden CG excursion! Go ahead and do it!
maybe you should ask instead of ponitifying

Maybe! I suspect that the Pilot's Manual for the B-17 was a great deal more detailed than that of the Lancaster given to the first crews to fly it in service! Boeing is famous for their documentation. I've never heard of a Pilot's Manual for an early Lancaster published before it was put into service!
    No pilot manual for the early lancaster? so what were the pilots supposed to guess what did what and what setting were required for takeoff/landing, you are just getting stupid now
  So show us one with a date before the first Lanc in service!
and show me a B17 one before the B17 was in service (I assume you mean actual in full front line service here as all pilots of Lancaster got manuals before they got aircraft)
 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/27/2013 9:29:13 AM
Must point out two errors.

Rate for angle track is a function of slant distance. The nearer the object, the greater the track angle divergence over time. This means a low altitude target requires a fast tracking gun lay. while a farther object away requires a slow tracking gun lay.

The farther away a target is the more time in flight for the shell or bullet. Large caliber explosive shells need to be used for distant objects. Bullets for near objects. There is a place between the range extreme where neither work well.

This is about 5000-7000 meters distant.
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/27/2013 9:39:16 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.
 
 
About  3 years ago? And the man, shooter, has never learned?
 
Sad.
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/27/2013 10:28:01 AM
Not in the slightest. If anything he has got worse
 
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