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       4/8/2013 9:05:09 PM
You do not get to set the parameters of what the data shows. The data does. To do otherwise it to lie. That is what I mean when I say you lie.
  




This is the ONLY question under debate! If they flew ~156,000 missions and dropped 608,000 tons of bombs, THEN what was the average bomb load per mission?


5. The TOTAL number of sorties flown by all types of British Heavy Bombers is only about 12% more than the TOTAL number of sorties flown by B-17s alone! 335K/298K! At least according to the report quoted above, and ALL other sources too! That figure alone makes the B-17 the more reliable of the two!






Incompetent you are. What it means is that a B-17 carried less bombs by weight per sortie
Never in dispute! EVER!


Are you that stupid that you do not understand this?



AGAIN, NEVER IN DISPUTE!

   
6. Given all of the above, I re-state my basic claims in this argument;

A. For any given load up to any that can be carried inside the B-17, the B-17 will fly farther, higher and more often than any Merlin engined heavy bomber flown in WW-II. The only real differance between the two is the typical mission profile.
And yet the 
conclusions reached in Part 27 of the study are exactly OPPOSITE to every claim you make.
    Not at all!

 

B. The B-17 was much tougher plane to knock down than the Lancaster. See losses/missions in the report above.

      
Since USAAF B-17 losses plane and crew losses are as great for half the tonnage dropped as Lancasters!
We are not argueing about losses per ton, only losses per sortie!
     

C. The differances in bomb load delivered by the RAF heavies and American heavies was entirely due to the huge differances in mission profile, not Aerodynamic properties of the two planes. If the Lancasters had to climb to altitude and circle over their bases forming up for up to 80-90 minutes before departing toward Germany like their American counter parts, their range would be about 250-320 miles less than the typical B-17 mission and 380-450 miles less than the typical B-24 mission. (The longer the mission, the larger the differance.
Where did it take 90 minutes for a 27 plane group to form up?
It is not just the first 27 planes, it is the twenty to thirty groups of 27 planes each that have to form up on the first group, and yes it some times took that long!   

D. Acording to the report cited above only a little over 40% of all bombs dropped by the RAF landed anywhere near their intended targets.
Before 1944 40% missed within their aim points' CEP circle. After 1944 70 %.[hit]  You like to omit facts don't you devious one?






How you lie matters, one called shooter. See first statement   
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/9/2013 8:24:48 AM
A little report I found ( figures up to end of 44)
type                  tons(long) dropped per Aircraft missing
Lancaster                           107.2
Halifax                                 48
US Heavy(not split)            41
that does not look impressive for US  bombers does it
No, not at all, until you understand one set of number were for the easy, at least according to the RAF-BCnight missions at low altitude and the other number was for daylight missions at high altitude?
 
Also
Lancaster bombload for 1500 mile range - 11500lbs
I have never disputed this! Ever. Just tried to inform you how those numbers were arrived at. Take off, climb/cruise, gaining altitude on the way to the target, WO formation, fly 750 miles, drop the bombs, RTB 750 miles, land with no reserves or gas in the tanks, all at night in the absence of true opposition.
actually that number excludes 30 minutes reserve
Now, why don't you calculate the numbers, IF, it had to fly the same mission as the B-17s in broad day light? RIGHT!
 
ok I will, firstly lets look at what we are compairing to
A B17G (nned to be a G to have tokyo tanks so that they can carry more than 3000lbs) actual maximum range mission 1200 miles with 6000lbs, no form up no opposition
 
so how does this compaire, ok so the B17 is half the load and 300 miles less
 
so how about we go the other way, a B17 at night, range - oh still only 1200 miles, bomb load oh still only 6000lbs
 
so b17 loses both times
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/9/2013 8:35:48 AM
 
Those are subsets of the same overall numbers manipulated to show different aspects of the same thing such as which bombers carried what percentage of loads, crew survival by sortie, and different bombing periods.   
I was only refering to the list of nine or was it ten, different by both source and number, "Average Bomb Loads" for Lanc's. I still ask, if those numbers, any of them are so good, why do NONE of them agree with the simple math of 608,000 tones dropped over 156,000 sorties equals about 8,000 pounds per sortie?
 
As that figure (at it is disputed as mention many times) is not a simple one divided by another figure but you like this figure as it seems to imply that teh Lancaster was worse than it was
 
This is the ONLY question under debate! If they flew ~156,000 missions and dropped 608,000 tons of bombs, THEN what was the average bomb load per mission?
discussed and disproved but obviouly it is beyond you tiny mind to understand so you return to this figure like a dog to its poo
5.  The TOTAL number of sorties flown by all types of British Heavy Bombers  is only about 12% more than the TOTAL number of sorties flown by B-17s  alone! 335K/298K! At least according to the report quoted above, and ALL  other sources too! That figure alone makes the B-17 the more reliable  of the two!

Incompetent you are. What it means is that a B-17 carried less bombs by weight per sortieNever in dispute! EVER!
Are you that stupid that you do not understand this?
AGAIN, NEVER IN DISPUTE!

So why do you keep repeating the same rubbish ?  
6. Given all of the above, I re-state my basic claims in this argument;

A. For any given load up to any that can be carried inside the  B-17, the B-17 will fly farther, higher and more often than any Merlin  engined heavy bomber flown in WW-II. The only real differance between  the two is the typical mission profile.
And yet the 
conclusions reached in Part 27 of the study are exactly OPPOSITE to every claim you make.
    Not at all!
 
If you think this then you obviouly either have not read it of are incapable of understanding it
 . The B-17 was much tougher plane to knock down than the Lancaster. See losses/missions in the report above.
      
Since USAAF B-17 losses plane and crew losses are as great for half the tonnage dropped as Lancasters!
We are not argueing about losses per ton, only losses per sorti
e!
But if you do that you need to assess the risk involved in those missions a fact you completely fail to addre
ss
     


It is not just the first 27 planes, it is the twenty to thirty groups of 27 planes each that have to form up on the first group, and yes it some times took that long!   

were is your source for that I canot find any source that states 90 minutes for form of a Bomber group
 
D. Acording to the report cited above only a little over 40% of  all bombs dropped by the RAF landed anywhere near their intended  targets.
Before 1944 40% missed within their aim points' CEP circle. After 1944 70 %.  You like to omit facts don't you devious one?
 
I think you need to look at the USAAF figures for the same period and you will find that they were about 60%, and thats in daylight
Does it matter much if it is the 40% I wrote above, or the 70% that missed that you wrote below my statement above! It is still 40-70% Missed and their "Aim Point's Circle was inside the City boundries, not the cross in the scope! The entire city was the aim point and most of the bombs missed! By my figures quoted from the RAF's own SBSU report, or by the number you quote above.
but by mid 44 the RAF was consistantly more accurate than the USAAF
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/9/2013 8:50:03 AM
2, it would make the aircraft uncontrolable in pitch      
Almost certainly resulting in a sudden pitch up, followed by a stall, or PIO= Pilot Induced Occilation resulting in ecessive loads beyond the aircraft's stress limits!
 
Stress limits? you mean load limits dont you?
With the CoG range AFT exceeded by more than one foot, or almost two feet, depending on who's guess you favor.    
but you have never shown this to be an issue you just think it should be, what you think is not proof (unless its proof of the opposite, but that is just historical and not a proof of future ststements)

If it was the second that would require both a bomb hang up AND pilot error,

Not at all. PIO is a condition caused by factors normally beyond the controll of the pilot, when the plane's CoG is so far behind the desired range!
beyond DESIRED range it may be but its not uncontrolable, if it were then it would not be a PIO situation but a stall, PIO requires the aircraft to be well within flight parameters such that pilot imput can cause the osalation, if the wieght caused the aircraft to become uncontrolable like you original statement then no pilot forward control motion would recover it, if forward control movement could not only recover level flight but insitgate a dive then it is with flight parameters

so basically you are saying that they lost hundreds of planes to PIO? you seriously expecting this to hold water? that all these loses were down to a CONTROLLABLE situation?
Once again. Aft CoG excursion is not something that any pilot can control.
Yes it is, a weight aft of CoG cause the plane to assume a nose up attitude, this can be controled by use of both engine power and control input, the most drastic change in the forces occur as the bombs aft of the CoG are being dropped yet it is only (according to you) the hung bomb that cause the loss!
When it happens the loss of control is both quick and beyond the pilot's ability to control.
Now that is rubbish, it would take longer than that to transit between one sudden climb and one sudden dive, and PIO would need sustained porposing to cause failure
However long it takes, how does that change the outcome?
It shows you have NO clue about what is happening

 

and not even the sudden disintegration of the plane there were never any survivors, yet in less losses due to flak(according to you) there were many reports of survivors from aircraft explosively disintegrating   
Point to any post where I stated any of the above sentance! You are "Inferring" things I never said because of your lack of knowledge about how and why aircraft do the things they do!
You claim that the reason noone has this down as a cause of Lancaster losses is that they were no survivors, yet as pointed out even bombers that exploded in mid air can have survivors, it seems it is your lack of knowledge that is at fault

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.

OK, fine. That is his oppinion. Exactly how much aft CoG excursion does he think it would take to make the average Lancaster un-flyable?
 
As he hasnt the test data availible he cannot say, he can however say with full confidence that 4x this moment would not be sufficent to result in the aircraft exceeding its limits
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/9/2013 8:56:33 AM
No, I got the CoG "Ideal point" from a post by others and the CoG range from someone elses post.
well you never credited it you claimed it was YOUR idea!
Again, that is simply not true! I always atributed the sources, just like I did above. The problem is the other people making assumptions about what I wrote WO actually understanding it or taking the wrong point from it.
No you didnt you never credidted anyone as there was never anyone who agreed
 
I use those Datums because they are larger than I would have expected, but are still exceeded by a hung 1,000 pound bomb in the last row aft!
only according to you no one else, in fact every one else thinks that this is a load of made up rubbish, it was when you tried the same question on a professional pilots site?
Please post a link to that prossessional Pilot's web site, so that I might review the data that is being used against me?
   
>>

Also note that I am prepaired to argue the whole point again, should any one post copies of the realivant documents!
Their are no relevant documents, Actually, there are realivant documents. They are the Lancaster's pilot's Manual where they list the CoG Datum and the Permissible range of CoG values!
Then provide a link as the official documents dont provide that information
 
 They have been posted several times over the length of this argument. Either look them up in the thread, or the various online copies of the manuals.
I have and caanot find the information you claim to be thjier, so this and your previous record would indicate that you are guessing that it mighht contain such info and have never actually seen the documents in question
If you are so convinced you find a document that states that such a loading at such a distance from the CoG would cause potentially fatal change in the flight envelope!
I never looked because I knew the results of such an excusion.
But as you are usually wrong this is no indication that it is anything but your dreams at work
 
But several other in this debate have looked and posted links to same.
Then provide a link because no one from this site has and noone from any other site that I am aware you have frequented has
 But their either thought it said something else, or failed to not the significance of scertain PPs in those links, like the PP and Graph of how a PIO happens and the result of same. (Which I pointed out in my next reply and they all ignorred.)
maybe because they read it and you didnt? or is it because it used long words that you didnt understand?
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/9/2013 6:26:51 PM

You misquote and misuse the numbers, one called Shooter.

You've only proven that you lie again because you use my numbers which are NOT your numbers that you originally used, (See your first posts.) I did not want to waste time arguing minutia when your numbers and mine are not SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT!

Additionally you write that B-17 losse were seen in daylight, No, I did not write that! Check your quotes! which is obvious and a foolish statement (though you lie about those ratios since it was fighters/flak equal) In B-17s/24s, or Lancs?  ignoring that you originally claimed most Lancasters were lost to flak, when you were warned that the British knew their losses were 2/1 fighters/flak.
That 2/1 ratio was penned by a boadmember here and all I did was question it using sarchasm. What I really did state was that they had no way to know how they lost the plane at the time they wrote those report during the war. And it seems much later too.
The only consistent is that you are wrong, one called Shooter and we now know you write falsely.

If you made so many mistakes in the above post about what I said and when, why should we believe you now?


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/9/2013 6:51:22 PM



This is the ONLY question under debate! If they flew ~156,000 missions and dropped 608,000 tons of bombs, THEN what was the average bomb load per mission?


5. The TOTAL number of sorties flown by all types of British Heavy Bombers is only about 12% more than the TOTAL number of sorties flown by B-17s alone! 335K/298K! At least according to the report quoted above, and ALL other sources too! That figure alone makes the B-17 the more reliable of the two!
What it means is that a B-17 carried less bombs by weight per sortie
Never in dispute! EVER!
6. Given all of the above, I re-state my basic claims in this argument;

A. For any given load up to any that can be carried inside the B-17, the B-17 will fly farther, higher and more often than any Merlin engined heavy bomber flown in WW-II. The only real differance between the two is the typical mission profile.
And yet the conclusions reached in Part 27 of the study are exactly OPPOSITE to every claim you make. 
Not at all! That report also confirms the differances in mission profiles; IE, the RAF took off and climbed on the way to the target WO formation, as single bombers all flying to the same target, then each returning to it's base in turn. It also states that the Americans formed up and climbed to altitude over England, then flew to the target and RTB'd as a group. HUGE DIFFERANCES in mission profile that made for huge differances in bomb load per ton mile! This fact is not in dispute by any expert on the planet!
We are not argueing about losses per ton, only losses per sortie!
     
C. The differances in bomb load delivered by the RAF heavies and American heavies was entirely due to the huge differances in mission profile, not Aerodynamic properties of the two planes. If the Lancasters had to climb to altitude and circle over their bases forming up for up to 80-90 minutes before departing toward Germany like their American counter parts, their range would be about 250-320 miles less than the typical B-17 mission and 380-450 miles less than the typical B-24 mission. (The longer the mission, the larger the differance.
Where did it take 90 minutes for a 27 plane group to form up?
It is not just the first 27 planes, it is the twenty to thirty groups of 27 planes each that have to form up on the first group, and yes it some times took that long!   

D. Acording to the report cited above only a little over 40% of all bombs dropped by the RAF landed anywhere near their intended targets. And that is for the total war, not just the first half!
Before 1944 40% missed within their aim points' CEP circle. After 1944 70 %.[hit]

One last time, the RAF did not have a "Point" to aim at, their target was the entire city and they only dropped about 40.1% of their total bombs inside city limits! At least according to that RAF-SBSU Report!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/9/2013 7:16:00 PM

Also
Lancaster bombload for 1500 mile range - 11500lbs
I have never disputed this! Ever. Just tried to inform you how those numbers were arrived at. Take off, climb/cruise, gaining altitude on the way to the target, WO formation, fly 750 miles, drop the bombs, RTB 750 miles, land with no reserves or gas in the tanks, all at night in the absence of true opposition.
actually that number excludes 30 minutes reserve Then I stand corrected! They had 2/3rds of the reserve required of American opps!
Now, why don't you calculate the numbers, IF, it had to fly the same mission as the B-17s in broad day light? RIGHT!
 
ok I will, firstly lets look at what we are compairing to
A B17G (nned to be a G to have tokyo tanks so that they can carry more than 3000lbs) actual maximum range mission 1200 miles with 6000lbs, no form up no opposition While this may have been the actual range, it is certainly not the longest and it does include the climb to altitude, formation form up and jogs in the flight line to target! So the Lancaster has to use lots of gas climbing to altitude for zero range, then burn more gas to form up and leave behind some of those bombs above to be able to climb to the same altitude! So in reality, it is 90 minutes worth of fuel at greator than cruise throttle openings to get to altitude and formation,  (It always takes more gas to climb than cruise!) thus lossing more than 1-1/2 hours worth of cruise at 220 MPH = >330 miles at a minimum! Then there is the reduction of tonnage required to cruise at those altitudes. That is the ratio of air density at the first altitude to the air density at the higher altitude reduces the total weight of the plane. Say 5,000 pounds reduction in total mass. (Maybe 7,000 pounds?) That means that the Lancaster will cary less bombs to less distance!
 
 
 


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/9/2013 7:33:25 PM

I was only refering to the list of nine or was it ten, different by both source and number, "Average Bomb Loads" for Lanc's. I still ask, if those numbers, any of them are so good, why do NONE of them agree with the simple math of 608,000 tones dropped over 156,000 sorties equals about 8,000 pounds per sortie?
Since I got those figues in yellow highlight above from the RAF reports post War, are you stating that the RAF lied? I did not think so, but I had to check just to be shure! So what part of the above numers and the simple math that goes with them do you dispute?
 
As that figure (at it is disputed as mention many times) is not a simple one divided by another figure but you like this figure as it seems to imply that teh Lancaster was worse than it was
This is the problem, are you disputing the numbers from the RAF post war reports? IE; 608 Kt or 156,000 sorties? Or is it the basic math that gives the answer above that you dispute? I've got to know in order to discover how you could argue that point!
This is the ONLY question under debate! If they flew ~156,000 missions and dropped 608,000 tons of bombs, THEN what was the average bomb load per mission?
discussed and disproved By whome and how? As far as I know, noone has ever disputed the RAF's report numbers! but They are not my numbers! They come from the RAF! Are you disputing their veracity?

5.  The TOTAL number of sorties flown by all types of British Heavy Bombers  is only about 12% more than the TOTAL number of sorties flown by B-17s  alone! 335K/298K! At least according to the report quoted above, and ALL  other sources too! That figure alone makes the B-17 the more reliable  of the two!
What it means is that a B-17 carried less bombs by weight per sortie Never in dispute! EVER!
AGAIN, NEVER IN DISPUTE!

So why do you keep repeating the same rubbish ?  
What rubbish? The numbers from the RAF? IE the 608 Kt? Do you mean that the RAF did not drop that many bombs?  Or the basic math of division of one of those numbers into the other?


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    Part 2.   4/9/2013 7:50:00 PM

6. Given all of the above, I re-state my basic claims in this argument;
A. For any given load up to any that can be carried inside the  B-17, the B-17 will fly farther, higher and more often than any Merlin  engined heavy bomber flown in WW-II. The only real differance between  the two is the typical mission profile.
were is your source for that I canot find any source that states 90 minutes for form of a Bomber group
What is your evidence that it took much less than that? read more. 
 
D. Acording to the report cited above only a little over 40% of  all bombs dropped by the RAF landed anywhere near their intended  targets.
I think you need to look at the USAAF figures for the same period and you will find that they were about 60%, and thats in daylight
But our aim points were a single factory or factory complex! All or at least the vast majority of those 40% that missed were direct hits under RAF criteria! IE; NEARLY 100% hits inside city limits under RAF rules!
Does it matter much if it is the 40% I wrote above, or the 70% that missed that you wrote below my statement above! It is still 40-70% Missed and their "Aim Point's Circle was inside the City boundries, not the cross in the scope! The entire city was the aim point and most of the bombs missed! By my figures quoted from the RAF's own SBSU report, or by the number you quote above.
but by mid 44 the RAF was consistantly more accurate than the USAAF
This is an obvious mistake! Even the RAF's SBSU Report tells of sloppy formations in RAF raids and the consequently much larger bomb scatter that neans, that acording to American standards, IE inside the factory fence instead of inside the city limits, something like 96% of the bombs missed the refinery, etc...

So you like to argue inside the city linits accuracy, Vs inside the factory fence accuracy? What would happen if we reverse the criteria? Almost ALL American bombs fit the RAF rules as hits, IE, inside the city limits, but if the RAF states that 40.1% of their bombs during the entire war landed inside city limits, how can you claim that any significant number hit any specific factory?

 
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