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
Ispose       8/14/2012 1:51:10 AM
The P-38 was tested with 2 torpedoes but was rarely if ever actually used.
And the rocket load was 2x5, not 2x10.
I was nit-picking the 'over' 4,000 comment un-necessarily.  Fact is the Lightning was an excellent plane - more fighter than bomber because it had to dive-bomb given that it had no other way of aiming.
The Mossy was a bomber, with a second crewman and the ability to bomb from altitude and to perform the pathfinding role.
Did the Mossie have a Bombsight?...not sure if they did...I would assume they did..at least the models used for bombing
Both were excellent aircraft - the Allies could have won the European war with just these two and the Spitfire (early in the war) and Mustang (later when range was required).  The single-engine craft needed because the P-38 suffered from compression problems.
The P-38's compression problems were solved fairly early on...the P-38's main problem in NW Europe was that at High Altitude (20,000'+) their defrosters had a hard time keeping the windscreens clear....not a good problem to have when you are looking for 109's and 190's. Over the Pacific, Italy, and tthe Med it wasn't an issue
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose       8/14/2012 5:36:46 PM
Waah!!!!...sombody doesn't agree with Aussiegunner...I taking my toys and leaving...good riddancre...you don't know what you are talking about.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Photo 1   8/24/2012 9:03:41 PM
For those who think the Mossie was fragile, here is a picture of the damage o one that flew home after flying through debris.
 
 <a href=http://worldwartwozone.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=136554" src="http://worldwartwozone.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=136554" />
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Photo 2   8/24/2012 9:07:37 PM
Here is one that flew home after an argument with a ME-262.This website is the source, you have to register to see these images. 
 
http://worldwartwozone.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6307-dehavilland-dh-98-mosquito/
" target="_blank">link
 
http://worldwartwozone.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=136553" id="lightboxImage" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    link   8/24/2012 9:08:28 PM
worldwartwozone.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6307-dehavilland-dh-98-mosquito/
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    Toughness   8/25/2012 6:48:28 AM
Was still nowheres near as tough as a P-47 or a Flying Fortress. You can find a few pictures of Mossies surviving some damm bad damage...you can find hundreds of pictures of P-47's and B-17's surviving horrendous damage...the Mosssie was not in the same category at all
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    New info on the realitive performance?   1/18/2013 8:30:44 PM
In the other thread on how to determine fighter worth, or was it the best fighter one,,, There is a link near the end on the sifting of the various Strategic bombing surveys, both British and American. You should go through that report and see how it finds the Mossy?
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/21/2013 5:40:53 PM
But worse than that, the P-38 could out range,speed and ceiling any Mossy with guns and drop more than 4,000 pounds of ordinance! and stll have the guns and performance to fight it's way out of trouble instead of run with it's tail tucked between it's legs like all un-armed Mossy's!

 
dude, you are so far out of line with comments like this that it negates anything else you might have that is valid.  oh, and please give me an example of a P-38 being loaded with more than 4000 lbs of ordnance.
From Wiki;
The P-38L was the first Lightning fitted with zero-length rocket launchers. Seven high velocity aircraft rockets... (HVARs) on pylons beneath each wing, and later, 10 rockets on each wing on "Christmas tree" launch racks. The P-38L also had strengthened stores pylons to allow carriage of 2,000 lb (900 kg) bombs or 300 USgal (1,100 l) drop tanks. ( It could also carry two Mk-13 Torpedows at 2,216 pounds.)
The 12th G model originally set aside as a P-38J prototype was re-designated P-38K-1-LO and fitted with the aforementioned paddle-blade propellers and new Allison V-1710-75/77 (F15R/L) powerplants rated at 1,875 bhp (1,398 kW) at War Emergency Power. These engines were geared 2.36 to 1, unlike the standard P-38 ratio of 2 to 1. The AAF took delivery in September 1943, at Eglin Field.... In tests, the P-38K-1 achieved 432 mph (695 km/h) at military power and was predicted to exceed 450 mph (720 km/h) at War Emergency Power with a similar increase in load and range. The initial climb rate was 4,800 ft (1,500 m)/min and the ceiling was 46,000 ft (14,000 m). It reached 20,000 ft (6,100 m) in five minutes flat; this with a coat of camouflage paint which added weight and drag. Although it was judged superior in climb and speed to the latest and best fighters from all AAF manufacturers, the War Production Board refused to authorize P-38K production due to the two-to-three-week interruption in production necessary to implement cowling modifications for the revised spinners and higher thrust line.

Armament

  • 4× M10 three-tube 4.5 in (112 mm) rocket launchers; or:
    • Inner hardpoints:
      • 2× 2,000 lb (907 kg) bombs or drop tanks; or
      • 2× 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs or drop tanks, plus either
        • 4× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs or
        • 4× 250 lb (113 kg) bombs; or
      • 6× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs; or
      • 6× 250 lb (113 kg) bombs
    • Outer hardpoints:
      • 10× 5 in (127 mm) HVARs... (High Velocity Aircraft Rockets); or
      • 2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs; or
      • 2× 250 lb (113 kg) bombs
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/21/2013 6:16:44 PM


The P-38 was tested with 2 torpedoes but was rarely if ever actually used. This is true, but still possable?

And the rocket load was 2x5, not 2x10. See the later post with explanation and facts.

I was nit-picking the 'over' 4,000 comment un-necessarily.  Fact is the Lightning was an excellent plane - more fighter than bomber because it had to dive-bomb given that it had no other way of aiming. This is true.
The Mossy was a bomber, with a second crewman and the ability to bomb from altitude and to perform the pathfinding role.
Both were excellent aircraft - the Allies could have won the European war with just these two and the Spitfire (early in the war) and Mustang (later when range was required).  The single-engine craft needed because the P-38 suffered from compression Compressability? problems.



All AC flown in WW-II had "Compressability" problems! There were no exceptions! Some were faster than others at the onset of said problems, but all had them.
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    It is spelled...    1/21/2013 6:50:56 PM
compressibility.
 
P-38D was redesigned to solve tail flutter; not compressibility. It didn't work until three tries later with the G's.  The compressibility could not be solved until powered whole elevator and partial rudder plane controls (invented by the British) were incorporated into the Sabre.
Little things like "facts" are important.
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics