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
Maratabc       4/2/2013 11:36:51 PM
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?p=1531370#post1531370


Note how the Lancaster bomb carrier worked? Solenoid.


http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1998/01/stuff_eng_detail_lancaster.htm

The accepted number of total Lancasters produced is 7374. Of this total, 3932 aircraft were lost on operations, representing over 20 thousand aircrew either killed, captured or injured.

Note the number of lancaster casualties? Variant from the 55000 from Bomber Command totals. Why?  

Because 7 x 3932 = 27524?  
From the photos Note the access plates in the bomb-bay ceiling? They are called doors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxYytVef2p0

Note how the bomb aimer (brave man) could access the bomb-bay?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Cw13h-MmnVs&NR=1

Manufacture and testing. Note how bombs are loaded?  
 

 
Quote    Reply

Jabberwocky       4/3/2013 2:43:40 AM
Compilation of Lancaster facts, cadged from a carierty of sources: BBSU, Harris' 'Despatch on War Operations', the Bomber Command website, MoD website and a couple of specialist RAF/Bomber Command/Lancaster websites.
 
Lancasters lost on Ops: 3,345
Lancasters scrapped on return from Ops: 487, of which 142 were due to enemy action
Total Lancaster losses to enemy action on Ops: 3,487
Total wartime Lancaster losses: 3,832
 
Lancasters losses as a % of overall Bomber Command losses :
35.7%
 
As a % of operational bomber losses
38.6%
 
Lancaster flights on Ops: 156,192 (plus 116 operating for Coastal Command)
Daylight Ops: 40,139
Night Ops: 108,264
 
Lancaster Ops flights with 'effective' bomb drops: 137,956 (including sea mining operations)
Daylight Ops: 35,020
Night Ops: 100,423
 
% of overall Bomber Command sorties flown by Lancasters:
40.1%
 
Tons dropped:
608,612 long tons (RAF figure)
681,630 short tons (British Bombing Survey Unit)
 
% of overall Bomber Command tonnage dropped by Lancasters:
61.2%
 
Average Lancaster bomb weight per mission:
7,450 lb (Bomber Command figure for June and July 1943, including aborted missions)
8,850 lb (Bomber Command, average bomb load for operations, December 1943 to March 1944)
9,155 lb (Haris 'Despatch on War Operations') 
9,186 lb (BBSU average bomb-load figure)
9,634 lb (Bomber Command planning figure, December 1943)
9,730 lb (Bomner Command planning figure, February 1944)
9,870 lb (MoD figure)
9,901 lb (RAAF figure)
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/3/2013 8:28:51 AM
As to your silly argument that the bomb in the next row would make it hard to fly, have you calc'd the moment arm of the two conditions and plotted them on the CoG chart? Right! I know you have not, or you never would have made the statement!
 
I had a word with someone who knows what he is talking about, his first question was
 
what kind of failure are we talking about?
 
In that even if the weight was sufficient to cause the plane loss (which he doubted - see later) thier was two possibilities,
1, that it would cause structual failure
2, it would make the aircraft uncontrolable in pitch
 
he stated that 1 1000lb bomb would have been well within the structual tollerance of the Lancaster even if it was twice the distance from the CoG
 
as for pitch, a 1000lbs bomb would cause the most delta change in the moments post the previous row's drop as you not only get the weight of the hung bomb but the sudden loss of weight of the previous row, he again asks why, if this was an issue, did they drop from nose to tail maximising the issue.
 
if it was not the sudden change in CoG that was the cause the the other possibility was that it resulted in an uncontrolable nose up attitude but he was certain a 1000lbs would not have resulted in suffcient node up attitude to result in a stall, in fact he was under the impre4ssion that 1000lbs would be well with the limits of control surfaces but even if not it would result in a fairly leasurely stall that would have had alarm bells ringing at Avro, something that never happened even post war.
 
but his basic oppinion was that the whole idea was rubbish, whilst a CoG change of this order was not nice it certainly wouldnt have moved the plane out of control flight parameters.
 
So I looked back over your posts as relised that all the supporting evidence you have comeup wityh (like CoG positioning and MAC etc) were from your self , even thge initial point was you guessing, a guess you have supported with more guesses  supported by more guesses, in short a right house of cards
 
so we have 100s of post by you that has NO factual basis
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/5/2013 7:23:48 AM
I didn't even try, actual Lancaster blueprints are not afaik available online,     
I just got my copy of Bill Sweetman's book "Avro Lancaster" and guess what? There are no inspection or any other openings in the floor/bomb bay roof through which a hung bomb can be un-hung or even seen!
 
 
Nice link, but his plane may have been constructed after the one in Sweetmans fotos? I do not know.
The floor structure is the main beam of the fuselage and is constructed of a serries of stringers and plated over on both top and bottom! 
those plates were REMOVABLE Acording to that book, the plating was riveted on and not removable and there were no inspection plates.
well as the floor was not changed between Manchesters and Lancaster of any variant how do you explain this
 
mouse holes?
So if the later planes had them, they must have known there was a problem? Don't you think?
What like landing with bombs on board (potentially armed bombs) was not a proble in its own right?
 
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      
       Then you did not read the text in the link about "Basic Aerodynamic Principles" posted just one or two before this!      
I did and it clearly does not state that such a change in CofG would cause the planes destruction Actually it did and had a diagram to illistrate the process to boot!
 
you havent explaned HOW this change would cause "near instantainious destruction" when a 500lbs bomb in the same location was not considered a flight hazzard, or why bombs were dropped for to aft if this rear shift of CoG was such a danger
 
You claim a lot but show very little understanding of the subject, often a 5 minute google will provide a full rebuttal of your claims, why dont you do  an extra five minutes on research BEFORE you post? or is your time on the library computers charged by the minute?
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/5/2013 3:11:00 PM

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?p=1531370#post1531370
If you go up six posts from the one in that link you find a post with two charts out of the Pilot's Manual. The one I like shows range Vs load. Check it out, because that chart disputes most of what many have claimed here about hauling 12-14-18,000 pounds to Berlin. Just to make the point about all aircraft of the time; Range is fungable for bombs and vice verse.

Note how the Lancaster bomb carrier worked? Solenoid.
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1998/01/stuff_eng_detail_lancaster.htm
Yes, but read it all and note that there is no mention of how to un-hang a stuck bomb! Also note that the pic of the inside of the bomb bay fails to show a single inspection port in the vicinity of any bomb shackle! WHEATHER, this is because of the photo's poor quality, or that there are none to show, I do not know.
The accepted number of total Lancasters produced is 7374. Of this total, 3932 aircraft were lost on operations, representing over 20 thousand aircrew either killed, captured or injured.
Note the number of lancaster casualties? Variant from the 55000 from Bomber Command totals. Why?  
Because 7 x 3932 = 27524?  
All true! Thank you for making my point! Total RAF-BC KIAs were the larger figure and included those of the Sterling and the other Heavy Bomber, which name escapes me now. But I figure that it was more like 24,496 just from Lancasters because some of the crew made it out of stricken bombers. On the other hand American Casualties from Heavy Bombers in the ETO never exceeded 26,XXX, that from all types. The rest of America's 52,000 casualties were from Medium Bombers and fighter planes.
From the photos Note the access plates in the bomb-bay ceiling? They are called doors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxYytVef2p0
Either this link did not work, or it was not what you intended, because it does not show the bomb aimer entering the bay in any part. Please check the link and confirm it's content? Also, the bomb aimer's window does not permit axcess to any but possibly the first row of shackles and possibly not then at all?
Note how the bomb aimer (brave man) could access the bomb-bay?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Cw13h-MmnVs&NR=1
I have now watched it three times, you are mistaken if you think it shows any hole in the floor/ceiling of the bomb bay! See 1:20 or so in the film, there is no hint of an opening in the bomb bay floor. Then watch at about 3:21 as the bay doors open, no hint of light from above the ceiling or any inspection port anywhere even though the shackles are already mounted! Then look at the floor shown at about 4:40 in the film. That part is directly over the foreward part of the bomb bay under the technisions feet! There is no inspection hatch/port/pannel visible anywhere in the film!
Manufacture and testing. Note how bombs are loaded?  
Yes, from below, just like all other bombers of the time?
 
So, unless you can see something I missed as I watched those vids several times each, they all support my contention that there were no ports in the ceiling of the bomb bay!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/5/2013 3:32:44 PM

Compilation of Lancaster facts, cadged from a carierty of sources: BBSU, Harris' 'Despatch on War Operations', the Bomber Command website, MoD website and a couple of specialist RAF/Bomber Command/Lancaster websites.
Lancasters lost on Ops: 3,345
Lancasters scrapped on return from Ops: 487, of which 142 were due to enemy action
Total Lancaster losses to enemy action on Ops: 3,487
Total wartime Lancaster losses: 3,832
Lancasters losses as a % of overall Bomber Command losses :
35.7%
As a % of operational bomber losses
38.6%
Lancaster flights on Ops: 156,192 (plus 116 operating for Coastal Command) Daylight Ops: 40,139 Night Ops: 108,264 
Lancaster Ops flights with 'effective' bomb drops: 137,956 (including sea mining operations)
Daylight Ops: 35,020
Night Ops: 100,423
% of overall Bomber Command sorties flown by Lancasters: 40.1% From the three numbers above, it looks like the Lancaster was the best heavy bomber the RAF had. IE, 40.1% of sorties with 38.6% of losses, but it gets better, see below.
Tons dropped:
608,612 long tons (RAF figure)
681,630 short tons (British Bombing Survey Unit) This figure is disputed by figures published erlier in this thread by others when the posted the copies of the report for all to see. Also note that it does not agree with the above numbers if simple math is used to check them?
% of overall Bomber Command tonnage dropped by Lancasters: 61.2%
This is the number that makes the Lancaster shine!!! Dropping 61.2% of bomb tonnage for both 40.1% of sorties and 38.6% of losses!!! obviously the best British bomber of WW-II!!!
Average Lancaster bomb weight per mission:
7,450 lb (Bomber Command figure for June and July 1943, including aborted missions) I note that this figure is less than that I calculated? AND if the figures above are used to calc the average, it is <8,722 pounds; AND assuming that the figures for tonnage have not been scrambled as would be the case if the lables are wrong!
8,850 lb (Bomber Command, average bomb load for operations, December 1943 to March 1944)
9,155 lb (Haris 'Despatch on War Operations') 
9,186 lb (BBSU average bomb-load figure)
9,634 lb (Bomber Command planning figure, December 1943)
9,730 lb (Bomner Command planning figure, February 1944)
9,870 lb (MoD figure)
9,901 lb (RAAF figure)
Note the vast differances when comp'ing late war raids with early raids and the variance between these numbers and the calculated numbers based purely on the figures of sorties and total tonnage provided by the RAF-BC and RAF SBSU's numbers as posted before today! 



 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/5/2013 5:01:10 PM
All true! Thank you for making my point! Total RAF-BC KIAs were the larger figure and included those of the Sterling and the other Heavy Bomber, which name escapes me now. But I figure that it was more like 24,496 just from Lancasters because some of the crew made it out of stricken bombers. On the other hand American Casualties from Heavy Bombers in the ETO never exceeded 26,XXX, that from all types. The rest of America's 52,000 casualties were from Medium Bombers and fighter planes.
 
so 815 medium bombers and the fighter losses equate to 26000ish casualties yet 5500 heavy losses only accounted for 26000?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/5/2013 6:05:16 PM
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r_m_g.varley/Strategic_Air_Offensive.pdf

This is a single source compilation and is from OFFICIAL sources. It violently disagrees with some numbers you provided.
 
Note some key findings?
p.20;  graphs p21 (sorties), p22 (sorties)
Graphs based on the data in the official history clearly show the trends in both operational sorties despatched and aircraft lost, the latter also shows the number of crashed aircraft. Half of all the sorties flown during the war took place after April 1944, during the last year of the war period . But 73% of aircraft that
went missing did so before this date.
 
Marat speaks:
1. After the fuel shortage prevented the Luftwaffe day fighter and most of the night fighter force operations from May '1944 on. 
2. Halifax and Stirling plus other (USA) types must be accounted in the heavy bomber losses somehow. This is not separated out but can be guessed as being the main four engine heavy types lost before the Lancaster entered main service in 1941 and proportionally still significant until start of 1943. Note that there was no significant four engine heavy bomber force whatsoever until 1942, about the same time the Americans began  to arrive in the UK!
 
p 24-24 (graph and text)
Between July 1942, when detailed analysis started and May 1945, 5807
aircraft went missing on night operations. Of these 2278 (39%) were shot down by fighters, 1318 (23%) by flak and 112 (2%) were lost in collisions.
But in 2069 (36%) cases the cause of loss is not known.
      Based on these figures the ratio of fighter to flak losses was very roughly 2 to 1. However because of the large number of cases when the cause was not known this ratio can only be a rough estimate. On night raids losses through
fighter attack increased rapidly in the first half of 1943, but declined sharply following the introduction of the radar countermeasure "Window" in July 1943. It then increased again and only declined after the invasion of Europe, when the allied attacks were mainly against tactical targets and included many daylight raids. At this period many fighters wer grounded due to fuel shortage. It reached a low in October 1944 and then again increased slightly during the final throes before Germany surrendered.
 
Marat speaks:
Note graph on p33. (aircraft available by type)
Note graph on p35. (tonnage capacity measured in LONG tons)
Note on p37. Bomb data is in LONG tons.(RAF sources.)
 

 

Lancasters lost on Ops: 3,345

Lancasters scrapped on return from Ops: 487, of which 142 were due to enemy action

Total Lancaster losses to enemy action on Ops: 3,487

Total wartime Lancaster losses: 3,832

 

Lancasters losses as a % of overall Bomber Command losses :

35.7%

 

As a % of operational bomber losses

38.6%

 

Lancaster flights on Ops: 156,192 (plus 116 operating for Coastal Command)

Daylight Ops: 40,139

Night Ops: 108,264

 

Lancaster Ops flights with 'effective' bomb drops: 137,956 (including sea mining operations)
Daylight Ops: 35,020

Night Ops: 100,423

 

% of overall Bomber Command sorties flown by Lancasters:

40.1%

 

Tons dropped:

608,612 long tons (RAF figure)

681,630 short tons (British Bombing Survey Unit)

 

% of overall Bomber Command tonnage dropped by Lancasters:

61.2%

 

Average Lancaster bomb weight per mission:

7,450 lb (Bomber Command figure for June and July 1943, including aborted missions)

8,850 lb (Bomber Command, average bomb load for operations, December 1943 to March 1944)

9,155 lb (Haris 'Despatch on War Operations') 

9,186 lb (BBSU average bomb-load figure)

9,634 lb (Bomber Command planning figure, December 1943)

9,730 lb (Bomner Command planning figure, February 1944)

9,870 lb (MoD figure)

9,901 lb (RAAF figure)

 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/5/2013 6:17:16 PM
 
Note that the USAAF short ton data has been converted into British LONG tons for easy comparison to RAF totals.
 
NOW we can all discuss and compare from a common data set and set Shooter's false facts aside?
 
The work is found in

Aspects of the Combined British
and American
Strategic Air Offensive
against Germany 1939 to 1945.
 Including an assessment of
 RAF Bomber Command and the 8th & 9th
 US Army Air Forces’ Casualties and Losses in World War II.
 
By
Michael Varley
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/5/2013 6:19:23 PM
Get glasses. Solenoid access panels are clearly VISIBLE.




Note how the Lancaster bomb carrier worked? Solenoid.
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1998/01/stuff_eng_detail_lancaster.htm
Yes, but read it all and note that there is no mention of how to un-hang a stuck bomb! Also note that the pic of the inside of the bomb bay fails to show a single inspection port in the vicinity of any bomb shackle! WHEATHER, this is because of the photo's poor quality, or that there are none to show, I do not know.
The accepted number of total Lancasters produced is 7374. Of this total, 3932 aircraft were lost on operations, representing over 20 thousand aircrew either killed, captured or injured.
Note the number of lancaster casualties? Variant from the 55000 from Bomber Command totals. Why?  
Because 7 x 3932 = 27524?  
All true! Thank you for making my point! Total RAF-BC KIAs were the larger figure and included those of the Sterling and the other Heavy Bomber, which name escapes me now. But I figure that it was more like 24,496 just from Lancasters because some of the crew made it out of stricken bombers. On the other hand American Casualties from Heavy Bombers in the ETO never exceeded 26,XXX, that from all types. The rest of America's 52,000 casualties were from Medium Bombers and fighter planes.
From the photos Note the access plates in the bomb-bay ceiling? They are called doors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxYytVef2p0
Either this link did not work, or it was not what you intended, because it does not show the bomb aimer entering the bay in any part. Please check the link and confirm it's content? Also, the bomb aimer's window does not permit axcess to any but possibly the first row of shackles and possibly not then at all?
Note how the bomb aimer (brave man) could access the bomb-bay?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Cw13h-MmnVs&NR=1
I have now watched it three times, you are mistaken if you think it shows any hole in the floor/ceiling of the bomb bay! See 1:20 or so in the film, there is no hint of an opening in the bomb bay floor. Then watch at about 3:21 as the bay doors open, no hint of light from above the ceiling or any inspection port anywhere even though the shackles are already mounted! Then look at the floor shown at about 4:40 in the film. That part is directly over the foreward part of the bomb bay under the technisions feet! There is no inspection hatch/port/pannel visible anywhere in the film!
Manufacture and testing. Note how bombs are loaded?  



Yes, from below, just like all other bombers of the time?

 So, unless you can see something I missed as I watched those vids several times each, they all support my contention that there were no ports in the ceiling of the bomb bay!

 
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