WI Mosquitos not Lancasters

Post by Gary Walker
The British bomber offensive (for all its bravery) was largely a waste of
time. WI we had used daylight mosquito attacks instead of the 1000 bomber
raids? Lancaster production (which was vast) took up a lot of industry which
could have been spent on Mosquito, Typhoon & Tempest production which would
have surely shortened the war.

Good question Gary. But I'd question the strategic value of daylight
Mosquito attacks. Lets explore the strategy:

1) The war can be ended more rapidly if Germany's production is lowered
2) To lower Germany's production, we intend a strategic bombing campaign
aimed at its industrial production
a) This requires accurate bombing of selected facilities
b) Which means daylight bombing
c) Which means fighter cover

versus the apparent historical British strategy:

1) The war can be ended more rapidly if Germany's production is lowered
2) But daylight bombing of productive facilities is too costly with too
little result
3) So lets terrorise civillians at night
4) With lots of four engine bomber raids

I don't know that you'll be able to get an RAF bomber command that views
strategy in terms of the first idea. I don't know that you'll get a
bomber command with the first view in time to change the production
facilities / training scheme. And I don't know how a 2 engine daylight
bomber offensive will placate British conscience and Soviet demands
regarding a real second front.

yours,
Sam R.

Gary Walker

2005-08-04 08:38:42 UTC

Post by Sam R.

Good question Gary. But I'd question the strategic value of daylight
1) The war can be ended more rapidly if Germany's production is lowered
2) To lower Germany's production, we intend a strategic bombing campaign
aimed at its industrial production
a) This requires accurate bombing of selected facilities
b) Which means daylight bombing
c) Which means fighter cover

Not neccessarily, arriving at dawn and scooting after the strike with a
couple of squadrons (see reasoning in reply to Mike's post). I don't know
how the US
would have responded to requests for valuable Mustangs as escorts. I know
the RAF had P51 -Cs, but I'm not sure about P51-Ds.

Post by Sam R.
1) The war can be ended more rapidly if Germany's production is lowered
2) But daylight bombing of productive facilities is too costly with too
little result
3) So lets terrorise civillians at night
4) With lots of four engine bomber raids
I don't know that you'll be able to get an RAF bomber command that views
strategy in terms of the first idea. I don't know that you'll get a
bomber command with the first view in time to change the production
facilities / training scheme. And I don't know how a 2 engine daylight
bomber offensive will placate British conscience and Soviet demands
regarding a real second front.
yours,
Sam R.

mike

2005-08-04 02:47:13 UTC

I'd doubt you could ramp up Mosquito production much, without
changing the whole process over to what the USA did with
Fairchild and their Duromold Plywood for the production you would
need.

Otherwise you will run into the glue delamination problems.
Fairchild Trainers didn't have that problem, even in Texas

Training workers in wood was harder than aluminum.

Then, a stream of fast, but unarmed bombers flying in daylight
would take balls.

Slipping a squadrons worth past is one thing, but do it daily
with hundreds of them, I'd not want to try.

**
mike
**

Gary Walker

2005-08-04 08:32:04 UTC

Post by mike

I'd doubt you could ramp up Mosquito production much, without
changing the whole process over to what the USA did with
Fairchild and their Duromold Plywood for the production you would
need.
Otherwise you will run into the glue delamination problems.
Fairchild Trainers didn't have that problem, even in Texas
Training workers in wood was harder than aluminum.
Then, a stream of fast, but unarmed bombers flying in daylight
would take balls.

I suppose the trick would be to fly at night and arrive on target at dawn.

Post by mike
Slipping a squadrons worth past is one thing, but do it daily
with hundreds of them, I'd not want to try.

You'd only need a couple of squadrons anyway. Say for instance, you wanted
to hit a certain factory. With 24 Mosquitos carrying, say a 1.5 ton bomb
load (if you wanted a decent range, that is) what would the on-target stats
be? 70% on an average low level daylight raid ? That's 25.2 tons on target.
How many Lancasters would you need to get that many bombs on the same
target? And more importantly, each Lancaster down cost 7 men, whereas a
Mosquito cost "only" 2. Also you have a dramatic reduction in collateral
losses. With its four 20mm cannon, the Mosquito could wreak havoc on the way
back as the P-47s did.

Imagine how many more precious Merlin engines you'd have available.

Post by mike
**
mike
**

By the way, does anyone know if Mosquitos were visible to the radar of the
day or not?

Michele Armellini

2005-08-04 10:47:15 UTC

"Gary Walker" <***@walker-lincoln.fsnet.co.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:dcsjq2$fuu$***@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
First thing, the British did carry out occasional daylight raids for
high-accuracy purposes. This of course did not replace the standard
approach.

Post by mike
Then, a stream of fast, but unarmed bombers flying in daylight
would take balls.

I suppose the trick would be to fly at night and arrive on target at dawn.

The Germans may employ their standard daylight fighters if the bombing
procedure is what you list below.

Post by mike
Slipping a squadrons worth past is one thing, but do it daily
with hundreds of them, I'd not want to try.

You'd only need a couple of squadrons anyway. Say for instance, you wanted
to hit a certain factory. With 24 Mosquitos carrying, say a 1.5 ton bomb
load (if you wanted a decent range, that is)

No. That would be 1 ton per aircraft.

what would the on-target stats

Post by Gary Walker
be? 70% on an average low level daylight raid ?

A low-level daylight raid means the Mosquitos are extremely vulnerable to
both AA and standard daylight fighters.

That's 25.2 tons on target.

With a 1-ton load, the total is actually 16.8 tons. But both figures are
quite small. On a largish industrial compound, that would be medium damage
only.

Post by Gary Walker
How many Lancasters would you need to get that many bombs on the same
target?

With a 15% accuracy rate, the same number of aircraft (24) drop 21.6 tons on
target. Of course 24 Lancasters cost way more than 24 Mosquitos, but a
significant proportion of the 85% of bombs not on the factory are not
wasted. Factories are surrounded by other targets, normally, and several of
those targets are quite important to the factory's functioning as well. The
stray bombs may hit power, water or gas lines and stations, roads and
railroads that are used by the factory to receive personnel and raw
materials and to send out finished products, auxiliary workshops etc. All of
which will disrupt production just like a hit on the factory itself.

And more importantly, each Lancaster down cost 7 men, whereas a

Post by Gary Walker
Mosquito cost "only" 2. Also you have a dramatic reduction in collateral
losses.

No. One Lancaster was lost for every 132 tons of bombs dropped by them. In
this 24-Lancaster raid, 1 Lancaster would be lost, given that the total bomb
load is 144 tons.
On the contrary, the Mosquito Squadrons carrying out a low-level attack in
daylight would in all likelihood lose at least one aircraft to the FlAK, and
probably several more to Fw 190s.
Many hits, both delivered by FlAK and fighters, a Lancaster would withstand
will be deadly for a Mosquito.

So, from the POV of losses, Lancasters are better.

With its four 20mm cannon, the Mosquito could wreak havoc on the way

Post by Gary Walker
back as the P-47s did.

With the difference that a P-47 can fight it out with any German fighter,
and is way sturdier in case there's some FlAK on the target.

The reason why Mosquitos had a good survivability was that they flew very
high and very fast. All of your proposals imply them flying very low and
quite slow.

Gary Walker

2005-08-04 11:23:07 UTC

Post by Michele Armellini
First thing, the British did carry out occasional daylight raids for
high-accuracy purposes. This of course did not replace the standard
approach.

Post by mike
Then, a stream of fast, but unarmed bombers flying in daylight
would take balls.

I suppose the trick would be to fly at night and arrive on target at dawn.

The Germans may employ their standard daylight fighters if the bombing
procedure is what you list below.

Post by mike
Slipping a squadrons worth past is one thing, but do it daily
with hundreds of them, I'd not want to try.

You'd only need a couple of squadrons anyway. Say for instance, you wanted
to hit a certain factory. With 24 Mosquitos carrying, say a 1.5 ton bomb
load (if you wanted a decent range, that is)

No. That would be 1 ton per aircraft.

4000lbs standard max load for Mosquito

Post by Michele Armellini
what would the on-target stats

Post by Gary Walker
be? 70% on an average low level daylight raid ?

A low-level daylight raid means the Mosquitos are extremely vulnerable to
both AA and standard daylight fighters.
That's 25.2 tons on target.
With a 1-ton load, the total is actually 16.8 tons. But both figures are
quite small. On a largish industrial compound, that would be medium damage
only.

I beg to differ. Even your diminished figure of 16.8 tons would cause
extreme damage to any machine-tool shop. Remember, these bombs are placed
from low level not indiscriminatley dropped from 18 000 ft vaguely in the
direction of the target.

Post by Gary Walker
How many Lancasters would you need to get that many bombs on the same
target?

With a 15% accuracy rate,

no, no, no, far too high. Try 5% on a good night. Remember we're bombing a
factory, not the Ruhr in general.

the same number of aircraft (24) drop 21.6 tons on

Post by Michele Armellini
target. Of course 24 Lancasters cost way more than 24 Mosquitos, but a
significant proportion of the 85% of bombs not on the factory are not
wasted. Factories are surrounded by other targets, normally, and several of
those targets are quite important to the factory's functioning as well. The
stray bombs may hit power, water or gas lines and stations, roads and
railroads that are used by the factory to receive personnel and raw
materials and to send out finished products, auxiliary workshops etc. All of
which will disrupt production just like a hit on the factory itself.

All these targets can be identified for specific attention by preceeding
photo recon if neccessary, prior to Mosquito raid.

Post by Michele Armellini
And more importantly, each Lancaster down cost 7 men, whereas a

Post by Gary Walker
Mosquito cost "only" 2. Also you have a dramatic reduction in collateral
losses.

No. One Lancaster was lost for every 132 tons of bombs dropped by them. In
this 24-Lancaster raid, 1 Lancaster would be lost, given that the total bomb
load is 144 tons.

Your reasoning does not apply here. That statistic applied to the wartime
total bombs dropped/aircraft lost. This includes 1000 bomber raids during
which the Luftwaffe simply couldn't capitalise on their megre resources for
sheer weight of numbers. I think it would be reasonable to assume that 3
Lancasters would be lost to alerted night fighters.

Post by Michele Armellini
On the contrary, the Mosquito Squadrons carrying out a low-level attack in
daylight would in all likelihood lose at least one aircraft to the FlAK, and
probably several more to Fw 190s.
Many hits, both delivered by FlAK and fighters, a Lancaster would withstand
will be deadly for a Mosquito.

But balance that against the lessened likelihood of the Mosquito being hit
(more agile, faster)

Post by Michele Armellini
So, from the POV of losses, Lancasters are better.
With its four 20mm cannon, the Mosquito could wreak havoc on the way

Post by Gary Walker
back as the P-47s did.

With the difference that a P-47 can fight it out with any German fighter,
and is way sturdier in case there's some FlAK on the target.

Way sturdier? Not sure about that. Sure it has a tough radial up front, but
the Mossy has a reserve engine.

Post by Michele Armellini
The reason why Mosquitos had a good survivability was that they flew very
high and very fast. All of your proposals imply them flying very low and
quite slow.

Low and fast.

a***@pacific.net.au

2005-08-04 14:01:24 UTC

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 12:23:07 +0100, "Gary Walker"

Post by Gary Walker
You'd only need a couple of squadrons anyway. Say for instance, you wanted
to hit a certain factory. With 24 Mosquitos carrying, say a 1.5 ton bomb
load (if you wanted a decent range, that is)

No. That would be 1 ton per aircraft.

4000lbs standard max load for Mosquito

You implied that you would get a "decent range" ... so, as Michelle
said, you have a 1 ton bombload *if* that *is* what you want.

The "max load" would give minimum range.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Gary Walker

2005-08-04 14:05:06 UTC

Ah yes, I thought she meant 1 ton being the max load. Since writing that
I've learned that there was no load inbetween 1 & 2 tons for the Mosquito,
so I'll concede that it would be 1 ton.

Post by a***@pacific.net.au
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 12:23:07 +0100, "Gary Walker"

No. That would be 1 ton per aircraft.

4000lbs standard max load for Mosquito

You implied that you would get a "decent range" ... so, as Michelle
said, you have a 1 ton bombload *if* that *is* what you want.
The "max load" would give minimum range.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Michele Armellini

2005-08-04 14:25:59 UTC

Post by mike
Then, a stream of fast, but unarmed bombers flying in daylight
would take balls.

I suppose the trick would be to fly at night and arrive on target at dawn.

The Germans may employ their standard daylight fighters if the bombing
procedure is what you list below.

I suppose that since you don't reply to this point, you see it's correct.

Post by mike
Slipping a squadrons worth past is one thing, but do it daily
with hundreds of them, I'd not want to try.

You'd only need a couple of squadrons anyway. Say for instance, you wanted
to hit a certain factory. With 24 Mosquitos carrying, say a 1.5 ton bomb
load (if you wanted a decent range, that is)

No. That would be 1 ton per aircraft.

4000lbs standard max load for Mosquito

Then you would be loading the external pylons, which would severely cut into
speed. 1 ton is a realistic load if you want speed and range.

Post by Michele Armellini
what would the on-target stats

Post by Gary Walker
be? 70% on an average low level daylight raid ?

A low-level daylight raid means the Mosquitos are extremely vulnerable to
both AA and standard daylight fighters.
That's 25.2 tons on target.
With a 1-ton load, the total is actually 16.8 tons. But both figures are
quite small. On a largish industrial compound, that would be medium damage
only.

I beg to differ. Even your diminished figure of 16.8 tons would cause
extreme damage to any machine-tool shop.

To any one individual machine-tool shop, yes. If we are talking standard
strategic-value factory complexes, these contain tens of shops, and huge
amounts of empty spaces, parking/marshalling areas, empty warehouses and
open storage areas, etc. You need _lots_ of bombs.

Remember, these bombs are placed

Post by Gary Walker
from low level not indiscriminatley dropped from 18 000 ft vaguely in the
direction of the target.

I'm perfectly aware of that and I was not comparing this to any amount of
ordnance dropped from any other altitude. If you look at the statistic data,
you'll see that the Allies needed _hundreds_ of tons right on target, not
counting those off target, in order to significantly hinder production in
large industrial compounds - and that only for a while, because the Germans
do repair them.

Post by Gary Walker
How many Lancasters would you need to get that many bombs on the same
target?

With a 15% accuracy rate,

no, no, no, far too high. Try 5% on a good night. Remember we're bombing a
factory, not the Ruhr in general.

Actually 15% is not too high. First thing, if we are talking about a
strategic-value target, it's not "a factory". It's an industrial complex
including many large and countless smaller buildings.
Given such a large target and a CEP of some 1,500 meters from 6,000 meters
of altitude (which can be achieved if those Mosquitos are used for the right
task, that is, as pathfinders illuminating the target), we're in the right
ballpark area.

Post by Gary Walker
the same number of aircraft (24) drop 21.6 tons on

All

Post by Michele Armellini
of
which will disrupt production just like a hit on the factory itself.

All these targets can be identified for specific attention by preceeding
photo recon if neccessary, prior to Mosquito raid.

Meaning that the Mosquitos will attack all these targets separately, I
suppose. Then you will need more than 2 Squadrons, right? Or the same 2
Squadrons over several dawns. One would suppose that at the third dawn, the
Fw 190s will be right there waiting for the British.
An alternative would be striking main target A1 the first night, then main
target B1 some 200 kms away on the second night, then back to area A to hit
secondary targets A2 and A3, etc. This will cause localized, small amounts
of damage over a prolonged time, the kind of problem the German repair
organizations can cope with. Massive, simultaneous damage over all or most
of the production centers and infrastructures of an area was, OTOH,
something that was hard to cope with.

Post by Michele Armellini
And more importantly, each Lancaster down cost 7 men, whereas a

Post by Gary Walker
Mosquito cost "only" 2. Also you have a dramatic reduction in collateral
losses.

No. One Lancaster was lost for every 132 tons of bombs dropped by them. In
this 24-Lancaster raid, 1 Lancaster would be lost, given that the total bomb
load is 144 tons.

Not in the least. First thing, not all raids were 1,000 bomber raids.
Secondly, I never argued that the best way to hit that industrial target was
to send in just 24 Lancasters. I was just answering your question. On the
contrary, the Lancaster's way would be to add up _all_ the industrial
targets in the area and carry out an area mission - to which the
statistically valid figure above would apply. That one industrial complex
would be hit together with all the others in the area, and together with the
infrastructure. _That_ gives the Gauleiter a headache.

But balance that against the lessened likelihood of the Mosquito being hit
(more agile, faster)

Agility is worth nothing against the FlAK during the bombing run, as you
know. Either they fly straight or their 70% figure goes in the trash can.
If you want to compare the survivability of the Lancaster and of the
Mosquito against the enemy fighters, OTOH, the Lancaster's tail gunners
should be factored in, too.
And as to speed, you are presumably now comparing the top speeds of the
Lancaster and Mosquito; that is, the speeds they could develop at their
ideal altitudes. If you advocate the Mosquito being employed at low
altitude, you should hunt for the detail of its speed at the altitude you'd
want it to bomb. My guess is that it will be a way lower number.

Post by Michele Armellini
So, from the POV of losses, Lancasters are better.
With its four 20mm cannon, the Mosquito could wreak havoc on the way

Post by Gary Walker
back as the P-47s did.

With the difference that a P-47 can fight it out with any German fighter,
and is way sturdier in case there's some FlAK on the target.

Way sturdier? Not sure about that. Sure it has a tough radial up front, but
the Mossy has a reserve engine.

You don't reply to the issue of dogfights, so I gather you agree with me.
Yes, the Mosquito had two engines. I don't know if it could fly with just
one, maybe. OTOH it had a wooden construction, and the P-47 was not the
ground attack aircraft of choice for nothing.

Post by Michele Armellini
The reason why Mosquitos had a good survivability was that they flew very
high and very fast. All of your proposals imply them flying very low and
quite slow.

Low and fast.

As mentioned above, don't assume that at low altitude they are as fast as at
their ideal altitude.
Also, fast doesn't go well with bombing accuracy, and the lower you fly, the
worse the degrading of accuracy caused by flying fast becomes. Of course
they can fly away fast after bombing, but still - _relatively_ fast. Faster
than a Lancaster, yes. Faster than a German daylight fighter? No.
Then they have the choice of remaining at low altitude or climbing. If they
climb, that's a long climb before they can fly fast and at a relatively safe
altitude. During that climb, they are easy targets, and of course that climb
will cut into their range too. But at least, once they are high, they are
safer.
OTOH if they stay low, they'll be targets for all the FlAK on their way
home, and they'll be slower, and they won't have room for maneuvering if
they are attacked by enemy fighters.

Jamie McDonell

2005-08-05 02:02:16 UTC

<snip>

No. That would be 1 ton per aircraft.

4000lbs standard max load for Mosquito

Then you would be loading the external pylons, which would severely cut into
speed. 1 ton is a realistic load if you want speed and range.

Nope, two ton internal 'bulge bay' in the Mk IX (early '43) and Mk XVI
(late '43).

1805 mile range, with drop tanks.

Angus McLellan

2005-08-05 10:19:33 UTC

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:02:16 -0400, Jamie McDonell

Post by Errol Cavit
<snip>

No. That would be 1 ton per aircraft.

4000lbs standard max load for Mosquito

Then you would be loading the external pylons, which would severely cut into
speed. 1 ton is a realistic load if you want speed and range.

Nope, two ton internal 'bulge bay' in the Mk IX (early '43) and Mk XVI
(late '43).
1805 mile range, with drop tanks.

The bulged bomb bay was introduced into service (as opposed to being
tested on the odd development aircraft) on the 13th production B
Mk.XVI airframe. The first 4000 lb cookie was dropped by a Mosquito in
March 1944 at which time there seems to have been one squadron (139)
partially equipped with them. Modified B Mk.IV, Mk.IX, and Mk.25
aircraft were very uncommon. March 1944, or even the autumn of 1943,
is rather late in the day for changing aircraft and engine production
plans.

Assuming that every Mk IX was modified with a bulged bomb bay, which
is apparently not the case, there would have been about 70 modified
British B Mk.IV and Mk.IX aircraft, "a few" modified Canadian B
Mk.25s, and 408 B Mk.XVIs which could carry a single 4000 lb bomb, a
total of about 500 aircraft built or modified to the spring of 1945.

Not that Mosquito bombers were a high priority. Only about 1400 were
built before VE day. This from a wartime total of around 7000 Mosquito
airframes. Added capacity to build Mosquitos, especially if it is Bell
or another building them in the USA, is likely to result in more recce
aircraft, and perhaps night fighters, rather than more bombers.

Building significantly more Mosquitos in the UK would be very
difficult. Producing the historical quantity appears to have been
possible due to reduced demand for training aircraft, mainly due to
the substitution of Lend-Lease and Canadian-built types. Any
additional airframes would require the cancellation of combat types
which would mean a lot more arguments at the Air Ministry and the
Ministry of Aircraft Production. Even allowing for cancellations
somewhere, finding more two-stage Merlins is not a trivial problem and
importing two-stage Allisons looks to be a non-starter. More
complicated substitution schemes like increasing Hercules Lancaster
production alongside imports of Twin Cyclones and/or Double Wasps
would probably end in tears.

If the P-51 is the most overhyped American aircraft of WWII, the
Mosquito should probably win that prize among British aircraft.

Angus

--
"[T]he surest way not to have thoughts of our own is for us at
once to take up a book when we have a moment to spare." Arthur
Schopenhauer, On Thinking for Oneself.

Gary

2005-08-05 11:06:32 UTC

Post by Angus McLellan
If the P-51 is the most overhyped American aircraft of WWII, the
Mosquito should probably win that prize among British aircraft.

I really don't get that. The Mosquito doesn't figure anywhere near as much
in
WWII folklore as the Spit and Lanc, yet you only have to listen to German
accounts
of Mosquito activity to know it was held in particular dread. The Mustang
too was a fine aircraft and dare I say it better
than our Spit (OK, let's not go into the late-mark Spit debate - we're
talking mass production)

Angus McLellan

2005-08-05 21:24:06 UTC

Post by Gary

Post by Angus McLellan
If the P-51 is the most overhyped American aircraft of WWII, the
Mosquito should probably win that prize among British aircraft.

I really don't get that. The Mosquito doesn't figure anywhere near as much
in WWII folklore as the Spit and Lanc, yet you only have to listen to German
accounts of Mosquito activity to know it was held in particular dread. The Mustang
too was a fine aircraft and dare I say it better than our Spit (OK, let's not go
into the late-mark Spit debate - we're talking mass production)

"The Wooden Wonder". No hype there I'm sure. I can also remember
reading posts (in s.h.w.w-w-ii and r.a.m) in which the Mosquito has
been presented as a supposedly superior replacement for either the
B-17s and B-24s of the daylight bomber offensive, or for the
Lancasters and Halifaxes of the night bomber offensive, and sometimes
for both.

As for the Lancaster, it did fly coming on for half of all Bomber
Command sorties while dropping two-thirds of the total weight of
bombs. That's something noteworthy. The Mosquito flew a bit more than
one-tenth of all sorties, or about 75% of those recorded for the
Wellington and half as many as the Halifax. Some dubiously reliable
RCAF statistics suggest that the Lancaster was almost twice as
effective by one arbitrary measure (in this case it's tons of bombs
dropped per man-hour of effort) as the two-thirds of Mosquito bombers
which could not carry 4000lb bombs and only 10% less effective than
Mossies which could. There were almost 15 times more Lancasters built
than Mosquitos able to carry 4000lb bombs.

For the Spitfire, almost all of the hype is justified by a very long
and very successful history.

As for German post-war memoirs, you can prove anything at all from
those. Among the favourites in relation to the Combined Bomber
Offensive are Galland, who had no idea of the big picture and no
apparent interest in learning, and Speer, who lied his way out of a
good hanging and kept lying until the day he died. They aren't the
best of witnesses really. The Bombing Surveys would be much better as
evidence. Only the US one is online, and that only in part.

ISTM that the easiest way to decide on the importance of any factor,
in this case particular aircraft, is to imagine it's removal. It's
easy to imagine the RAF getting by without Mosquitos, or Lancasters,
or even without Spitfires although that would be the greatest loss of
the three. Most aircraft had alternatives which could do the same
jobs, or at least the most important parts of them, and potential
successors which could be hurried along. Later in the war Lend-Lease
offered the possibility, but never the certainty, of obtaining needed
aircraft from the USA.

But why not be controversial ? Even though nearly all aircraft
weren't critical, I think that I can come up with one series of widely
used RAF aircraft that were. And not any of the usual suspects. These
aircraft flew in most or all of the same roles as the Mosquito. They
didn't come close to excelling at any of them. Usually there was no
alternative available. The aircraft they replaced were usually very
much worse. The ones they stood in for were often long delayed when
they eventually appeared in service. So they probably were critical,
at least if the RAF was to follow anything like the course it did
historically. The aircraft in question are, as is probably obvious,
Frank Barnwell's Bristol Types 142M and 149, better known as the
Blenheim Marks I and IV.

Cheers

Angus

--
"[T]he surest way not to have thoughts of our own is for us at
once to take up a book when we have a moment to spare." Arthur
Schopenhauer, On Thinking for Oneself.

k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

2005-08-05 22:58:22 UTC

Post by Angus McLellan
The Bombing Surveys would be much better as
evidence. Only the US one is online, and that only in part.

There does not ever seem to have been a comprehensive British survey,
certainly not one on the same scale as the US one.

Ken Young

Gary Walker

2005-08-08 08:00:36 UTC

Post by Angus McLellan
As for the Lancaster, it did fly coming on for half of all Bomber
Command sorties while dropping two-thirds of the total weight of
bombs. That's something noteworthy. The Mosquito flew a bit more than
one-tenth of all sorties, or about 75% of those recorded for the
Wellington and half as many as the Halifax. Some dubiously reliable
RCAF statistics suggest that the Lancaster was almost twice as
effective by one arbitrary measure (in this case it's tons of bombs
dropped per man-hour of effort) as the two-thirds of Mosquito bombers
which could not carry 4000lb bombs and only 10% less effective than
Mossies which could. There were almost 15 times more Lancasters built
than Mosquitos able to carry 4000lb bombs.

The whole point of the original post was that Mosquito bombs tended to land
on their
targets and Lancaster bombs did not. So " tons of bombs
dropped per man-hour of effort" is meaningless.

David Thornley

2005-08-08 13:21:17 UTC

Post by Angus McLellan
Wellington and half as many as the Halifax. Some dubiously reliable
RCAF statistics suggest that the Lancaster was almost twice as
effective by one arbitrary measure (in this case it's tons of bombs
dropped per man-hour of effort) as the two-thirds of Mosquito bombers
which could not carry 4000lb bombs and only 10% less effective than
Mossies which could. There were almost 15 times more Lancasters built
than Mosquitos able to carry 4000lb bombs.

The whole point of the original post was that Mosquito bombs tended to land
on their
targets and Lancaster bombs did not.

No, that's false. The Mosquito was no more accurate than the Lancaster.

The difference you're looking for is that the Mosquito flew more low-level
missions than the Lancaster. Dropping from a low level is typically more
accurate than dropping from a high level, depending on the target. For
example, consider the "Crossbow" attacks on German V-launchers, which
were a waste of time when conducted by high-level bombers, whereas
low-level attacks could be effective.

So, what you seem to be suggesting is that strategic bombing missions
take place at low level, and that this be done with Mosquitos. You
may want to research mission profiles. I doubt the Mosquito had all
that great a range on the deck, so it would come in at high level,
attack at low, and go back at high level. There's no reason a
Lancaster couldn't do that.

Not to mention, you seem to be missing one very, very important issue
regarding accuracy.

No matter how accurate you are, you can only guarantee hitting
known targets that you can perceive.

By way of contrast, dropping lots of relatively inaccurate bombs
can hit unknown or obscured targets.

Remember that Bomber Command operated primarily at night, and the
USAAF operated a lot in conditions of bad visibility, both cases
where it may be impossible to pick out exact targets. By dropping
lots and lots of bombs, these forces often destroyed a lot of
targets even so.

So " tons of bombs

Post by Gary Walker
dropped per man-hour of effort" is meaningless.

Sure it is, when the tons are comparable. As long as the bombing
is from high level, they are. At low level, the Mosquitos get
chewed up by flak.

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
***@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

Gary Walker

2005-08-08 17:29:33 UTC

Post by David Thornley

The whole point of the original post was that Mosquito bombs tended to land
on their
targets and Lancaster bombs did not.

No, that's false. The Mosquito was no more accurate than the Lancaster.
The difference you're looking for is that the Mosquito flew more low-level
missions than the Lancaster.

Which is exactly what I proposed in the first place

Dropping from a low level is typically more

Post by David Thornley
accurate than dropping from a high level,

Exactly

depending on the target. For

Post by David Thornley
example, consider the "Crossbow" attacks on German V-launchers, which
were a waste of time when conducted by high-level bombers, whereas
low-level attacks could be effective.
So, what you seem to be suggesting is that strategic bombing missions
take place at low level, and that this be done with Mosquitos. You
may want to research mission profiles. I doubt the Mosquito had all
that great a range on the deck, so it would come in at high level,
attack at low, and go back at high level. There's no reason a
Lancaster couldn't do that.
Not to mention, you seem to be missing one very, very important issue
regarding accuracy.
No matter how accurate you are, you can only guarantee hitting
known targets that you can perceive.
By way of contrast, dropping lots of relatively inaccurate bombs
can hit unknown or obscured targets.

I can't believe that would be the aim of any planner; "just drop a load of
bombs wherever and hope we hit something"

Post by David Thornley
Remember that Bomber Command operated primarily at night, and the
USAAF operated a lot in conditions of bad visibility, both cases
where it may be impossible to pick out exact targets. By dropping
lots and lots of bombs, these forces often destroyed a lot of
targets even so.

Which is more or less irresponsible guesswork.

Post by David Thornley
So " tons of bombs

Post by Gary Walker
dropped per man-hour of effort" is meaningless.

Sure it is, when the tons are comparable. As long as the bombing
is from high level, they are. At low level, the Mosquitos get
chewed up by flak.

A few did. Most got through.

Post by David Thornley
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

David Thornley

2005-08-08 19:37:12 UTC

Post by David Thornley
Not to mention, you seem to be missing one very, very important issue
regarding accuracy.
No matter how accurate you are, you can only guarantee hitting
known targets that you can perceive.
By way of contrast, dropping lots of relatively inaccurate bombs
can hit unknown or obscured targets.

I can't believe that would be the aim of any planner; "just drop a load of
bombs wherever and hope we hit something"

Bearing in mind that "wherever" is a deliberately selected target-rich
environment (such as a factory complex), it's no different from using
artillery against an enemy position.

If you don't know which buildings are really important, it makes a whole
lot of sense to drop bombs all over the place rather than to try to
take out pinpoint targets.

Which is more or less irresponsible guesswork.

Nope; it was an efficient means of hitting targets under unfavorable
conditions. There was a lot of collateral damage, but the Allies weren't
worried about that after about 1939.

Did you want to restrict the bombing offensive to favorable conditions?
Don't forget that those favorable conditions are also favorable to
Luftwaffe fighters, who can attack the bombers from a higher altitude.

Did you want to restrict bombing to identifiable specific targets?
The Allies really weren't able to send inspectors in before the bombing
raids to see which part of the building is the machine tools and which
part the workers' canteen.

Did you want to restrict the bombing to close targets? Bomber Command's
navigational aids got increasingly imprecise the farther the mission was
from Britain. The attacks on Berlin in the winter of 1943-44 were pretty
darn inaccurate, and would have been with any bomber.

Post by David Thornley
Sure it is, when the tons are comparable. As long as the bombing
is from high level, they are. At low level, the Mosquitos get
chewed up by flak.

A few did. Most got through.

Against which targets? And what do you mean by most? Most of the
B-17s came back from each 1943 Schweinfurt raid, after all.

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
***@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

Angus McLellan

2005-08-08 19:56:07 UTC

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 09:00:36 +0100, "Gary Walker"
<***@walker-lincoln.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

<This is me>

The whole point of the original post was that Mosquito bombs tended to land
on their targets and Lancaster bombs did not. So " tons of bombs
dropped per man-hour of effort" is meaningless.

The bombs have to be almost twice as accurately dropped on average for
a an unmodified Mosquito Mk.IV, IX or XX bomber to be the equal of a
Lancaster. They'd have to be over six times more accurate for the
Mosquito bomber to be as superior to the Lancaster as the Lancaster
was to the Halifax. And they'd have to be that much more accurate at
night. Bomber Command already knew from the results of the April 1942
Augusburg raid that low level daylight bombing by Lancasters was
extremely effective.

We certainly can't use historical loss rates to compare aircraft
unless they flew similar missions in a similar environment. Lancasters
and Mosquitos usually did not. So it'll be arbitrary statistics on
bomb weight or no statistics at all I think.

Angus

--
"[T]he surest way not to have thoughts of our own is for us at
once to take up a book when we have a moment to spare." Arthur
Schopenhauer, On Thinking for Oneself.

k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

2005-08-05 22:58:21 UTC

Post by Gary
of Mosquito activity to know it was held in particular dread.

That was the night-fighter version, not the bomber.

Ken Young

k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

2005-08-05 22:58:20 UTC

Post by Angus McLellan
Even allowing for cancellations
somewhere, finding more two-stage Merlins is not a trivial problem

Neither is the production of more aircraft quality plywood. The
presses required to make it were not trivial to produce and the
Mosquito had to compete with gliders for the supply. There were even
problems cutting the sheets before laminating due to grain damage.
This was got round by shot blasting the sheets.

Ken Young

k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

2005-08-05 08:42:18 UTC

Post by Gary Walker
I beg to differ. Even your diminished figure of 16.8 tons would
cause extreme damage to any machine-tool shop.

Actually, machine tools are extremely difficult to damage by bombing.
After BSA had a factory destroyed they got most of the tools working
in 24 hours.

Ken Young

Angus McLellan

2005-08-05 11:30:51 UTC

Post by Gary Walker
I beg to differ. Even your diminished figure of 16.8 tons would
cause extreme damage to any machine-tool shop.

Actually, machine tools are extremely difficult to damage by bombing.
After BSA had a factory destroyed they got most of the tools working
in 24 hours.

Depends which BSA factory and which raid you mean. The raid on BSA's
Small Heath works in August 1940 destroyed the barrel mill and several
workshops. It took until October to get SMLE production restarted.
Next month a raid stopped production again until February 1941 and it
also stopped Boys AT rifle production. SFAICT Boys production never
did restart at Small Heath, moving instead to a new BSA factory at
Mansfield. These attacks were also enough to get BSA to move much of
Besa production to Leicester and to further disperse Browning
production as well. From the dates, all this would seem to have
resulted in the Ministry of Supply providing the Monotype Bren gun
production group with GBP 309K for additional plant and machinery,
which was 50% more than the initial capital outlay on the scheme
SFAICT.

For an even worse case look at Triumph. The 3TW 350cc parallel twin
was going to be the standard British forces solo motorcycle. The
bombing of the Triumph factory in 1940 put paid to that idea as the
jigs and tools, and almost all of the paperwork and plans, were
destroyed. It was April 1942, almost a year and a half after the
Coventry factory was bombed, before Triumph managed to get production
of motorcycles restarted on any scale at the new Meriden works. AIUI,
Wolseley's experience of being bombed was a lot closer to this than to
the relative speed with which BSA recovered.

Cheers,

Angus

--
"[T]he surest way not to have thoughts of our own is for us at
once to take up a book when we have a moment to spare." Arthur
Schopenhauer, On Thinking for Oneself.

k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

2005-08-05 22:58:22 UTC

Post by Angus McLellan
Depends which BSA factory and which raid you mean. The raid on BSA's
Small Heath works in August 1940 destroyed the barrel mill and
several workshops. It took until October to get SMLE production
restarted.

On the other hand this does not mean the tools were destroyed IIRC
the Germans and the Russians restarted production before the roof was
put back on.

Post by Angus McLellan
For an even worse case look at Triumph. The 3TW 350cc parallel twin
was going to be the standard British forces solo motorcycle. The
bombing of the Triumph factory in 1940 put paid to that idea as the
jigs and tools, and almost all of the paperwork and plans, were
destroyed.

Possibly, but it was competing with established bikes. Something like
the Matchless G3 or the BSA 350 (M something) were probably just as
suitable. The idea of a standard bike seems nice but I doubt that
Triumph had the production capacity. Motorcycle was pretty low
priority anyway. Most motorcycle factories converted to making parts
for more important weapons.

Ken Young

Gary

2005-08-05 11:50:18 UTC

Post by Gary Walker
I beg to differ. Even your diminished figure of 16.8 tons would
cause extreme damage to any machine-tool shop.

Actually, machine tools are extremely difficult to damage by bombing.
After BSA had a factory destroyed they got most of the tools working
in 24 hours.
Ken Young

What?????? You must be joking! The vast majority of metal cutting (incl
milling and turning) machines have cast iron
bodies in which the bearings locate. Any blast or substantial knock even
will cause CI to crack or even shatter. You can replace
a damaged machine with a new one and that's it. I know, I buy and sell them
for a living.

Jack Linthicum

2005-08-05 12:27:53 UTC

Post by Gary

Post by Gary Walker
I beg to differ. Even your diminished figure of 16.8 tons would
cause extreme damage to any machine-tool shop.

Actually, machine tools are extremely difficult to damage by bombing.
After BSA had a factory destroyed they got most of the tools working
in 24 hours.
Ken Young

Then you might enjoy a story told to me by one of your US conterparts.
He sold very large precision milling machines which are usually
delivered to the point of eventual use and installed by the creating
factory personnel. He got an order from a 'private citizen' who wanted
to buy such a device and have it delivered to his driveway in the
suburbs. When the salesman tried to dissuade him the 'buyer' went to
the company's home office and got his machine on his terms. My
informant believed the 'buyer' worked for a large government operation
that didn't want to disclose its location and presumed any problems
with installation of the machine would be done by blindfolded or blind
workers.

mike

2005-08-05 15:25:34 UTC

Post by Gary
What?????? You must be joking! The vast majority of metal cutting (incl
milling and turning) machines have cast iron
bodies in which the bearings locate. Any blast or substantial knock even
will cause CI to crack or even shatter. You can replace
a damaged machine with a new one and that's it. I know, I buy and sell them
for a living.

With the machines bolted down, the blast really wouldn't harm them
much.
secondary effects, like water from firefighters, was another thing,
or if the local powerplant was hit.

But in some cases, the roof would be blown off, most of the machinery
unhurt. A hot fire might melt the babbit right out from the lathe. But
they
would be reset, parts refaced or surfaced as needed,and production
restarted, with no roof overhead.

Its not like they were big on the Slave Laborers comfort, after all.

**
mike
**

a***@pacific.net.au

2005-08-05 22:15:59 UTC

Post by mike
Its not like they were big on the Slave Laborers comfort, after all.

Which is why you don't want to actually *use* a WW2 Slave Labour
produced HP-35 ... not unless you want it to blow up in your face,
that is.

Couldn't understand the point, personally, in having slave labour
produce industrially critical components. Not worth the effort, I
would have thought.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Errol Cavit

2005-08-04 10:49:39 UTC

"Gary Walker" <***@walker-lincoln.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:dcsjq2$fuu$***@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snip>

Post by mike
Then, a stream of fast, but unarmed bombers flying in daylight
would take balls.

I suppose the trick would be to fly at night and arrive on target at dawn.

Unfortunately, this only solves somewhat less than half the problem. The
immediate counter to such a strategy would be to have day fighters ready to
respond at dawn. Most factories that you want to target would require
significant flight time on the return leg.

Post by mike
Slipping a squadrons worth past is one thing, but do it daily
with hundreds of them, I'd not want to try.

You'd only need a couple of squadrons anyway.

Afraid not, factories were actually fairly easy to repair. And you would
have several hundred fighters in theatre to counter the Mossies. In OTL one
reason the Mossies were successsful was that the German main effort was
countering the Allied streams and boxes.

<snip>

Post by Gary Walker
By the way, does anyone know if Mosquitos were visible to the radar of the
day or not?

I'm reasonably sure they had metal propellers for starters...

--
Errol Cavit | ***@hotmail.com
I've heard a tape of collected kakapo noises, and it's almost impossible to
believe that it all just comes from a bird, or indeed any kind of animal.
Pink Floyd studio out-takes perhaps, but not a parrot.
Douglas Adams, _Last Chance to See_

Gary Walker

2005-08-04 11:34:34 UTC

Post by Errol Cavit
<snip>

Post by mike
Then, a stream of fast, but unarmed bombers flying in daylight
would take balls.

I suppose the trick would be to fly at night and arrive on target at dawn.

Unfortunately, this only solves somewhat less than half the problem. The
immediate counter to such a strategy would be to have day fighters ready
to respond at dawn. Most factories that you want to target would require
significant flight time on the return leg.

I'm sure the ingenious souls in Bomber Command could conjure up diversions
and EW tactics to try to counter fighter intelligence. Imagine mounting 30
two squadron raids in a night with diversionary (or dummy) raids making
incursions into the European coast. I think it's a scheme.

Post by Errol Cavit

Post by mike
Slipping a squadrons worth past is one thing, but do it daily
with hundreds of them, I'd not want to try.

You'd only need a couple of squadrons anyway.

Afraid not, factories were actually fairly easy to repair. And you would
have several hundred fighters in theatre to counter the Mossies. In OTL
one reason the Mossies were successsful was that the German main effort
was countering the Allied streams and boxes.

I'm sorry, I just have to disagree. Factories, with there inherent oils and
chemicals will suffer greatly from 20 odd tons of high explosives being
placed on them.

Post by Errol Cavit
<snip>

Post by Gary Walker
By the way, does anyone know if Mosquitos were visible to the radar of
the day or not?

I'm reasonably sure they had metal propellers for starters...

I'm sure they did (although Focke Wulfe used wooden ones to great effect),
and engines too. However, did these present a large enough signature for
early radar?

Post by Errol Cavit
--
I've heard a tape of collected kakapo noises, and it's almost impossible
to believe that it all just comes from a bird, or indeed any kind of
animal. Pink Floyd studio out-takes perhaps, but not a parrot.
Douglas Adams, _Last Chance to See_

Michele Armellini

2005-08-04 14:26:00 UTC

Post by Errol Cavit
Unfortunately, this only solves somewhat less than half the problem. The
immediate counter to such a strategy would be to have day fighters ready
to respond at dawn. Most factories that you want to target would require
significant flight time on the return leg.

Sorry, in the other message you say that the German defenses were
overwhelmed by the 1,000-bomber raid schemes. If that is true, then surely
some 30 very small raids are what the Germans can more easily cope with?

Jamie McDonell

2005-08-05 02:08:38 UTC

Post by Errol Cavit
<snip>

Post by Gary Walker
By the way, does anyone know if Mosquitos were visible to the radar of the
day or not?

I'm reasonably sure they had metal propellers for starters...

I'm not so sure about the propellers, but what do you think the Merlins
were made out of?

Errol Cavit

2005-08-05 07:01:01 UTC

Post by Jamie McDonell

Post by Errol Cavit
<snip>

Post by Gary Walker
By the way, does anyone know if Mosquitos were visible to the radar of
the day or not?

I'm reasonably sure they had metal propellers for starters...

I'm not so sure about the propellers, but what do you think the Merlins
were made out of?

They were at least had smooth-ish metal coverings. Don't propellers have the
radar return of a disc of the same diameter? The radiators in the leading
edge wouldn't help either.

--
Errol Cavit | ***@hotmail.com
"Life's a bitch, then you rejuvenate and do it all over again."
Liz Vernon, in Peter F. Hamilton's _Pandora's Star_

hlg

2005-08-04 11:40:20 UTC

"Gary Walker" <***@walker-lincoln.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:dcsjq2$fuu$***@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snip>

Post by mike
Slipping a squadrons worth past is one thing, but do it daily
with hundreds of them, I'd not want to try.

Mosquito bomb loads were fixed by bomb-bay dimensions. The early bomber
version (B. Mk IV) was designed for 4 x 250 lb, but it was found that by
cropping the bomb vanes, 4 x 500 lb could be carried. That's just short of 1
ton. The later B. Mk XVI had bulged bomb-bay doors and could carry a single
4000 lb LC "Cookie". Nothing in between 1 ton and 2 tons was possible.

70% on an average low level daylight raid ? That's 25.2 tons on target.

Post by Gary Walker
How many Lancasters would you need to get that many bombs on the same
target? And more importantly, each Lancaster down cost 7 men, whereas a
Mosquito cost "only" 2. Also you have a dramatic reduction in collateral
losses. With its four 20mm cannon, the Mosquito could wreak havoc on the way
back as the P-47s did.

The Bomber versions of the Mosquito had a glazed nose, fitted with the Mk.
14 bomb sight. There was *no* machine-gun or cannon armament.

The fighter-bomber version (FB Mk VI) had a solid nose with 4 x 20 mm cannon
and 4 x .303 machine-guns. However, the necessary space for cannon breeches
and ammunition feeds cut the bomb bay length in half and restricted the bomb
load to 2 x 500 lb. Also, it had no dedicated bomb sight, so bomb aiming
from altitude was impossible. (Low-level bomb attacks were made, but were
often a hairy process, what with Flak and ricochetting bombs. After 1943,
the most common offensive weapon carried by the FB versions was 8 x Rocket
Projectile under the wings).

The various Night Fighter (NF) versions of the Mosquito also had a solid
nose, with 4 x 20mm cannon only. (The provision of AI radar meant that there
was no room for the machine-guns.) To the best of my knowledge, they never
carried offensive bomb loads. Nor did the dedicated Photo-Reconnaissance
(PR)versions .

mike

2005-08-04 11:32:20 UTC

Post by Gary Walker
And more importantly, each Lancaster down cost 7 men, whereas a
Mosquito cost "only" 2

But of those 7, majority were gunners, that had lower training
requirements than the two, where each was a Pilot and
Navigator/Flight Engineer, and he would need extra training
similar to the Pathfinders to get the accuracy you want,
since without the Bombardier in the nose, no OBOE ot H2S
Nav. aids

Post by Gary Walker
Also you have a dramatic reduction in collateral losses.

I think it was Harris that said every bomb on Germany was a victory.
IMO he wasn't worried about it. In France, maybe. Germany, no.

Post by Gary Walker
With its four 20mm cannon, the Mosquito could wreak havoc on the way
back as the P-47s did.

The armed version cut down on bomb bay space two where (2)
250 pound bombs were carried internally, the rest on wing racks,
which cuts down on speed and range in. IIRC, only the Mks with
the (4) .303s in the nose didn't impact that.

Post by Gary Walker
Imagine how many more precious Merlin engines you'd have available.

The RAF was never really limited by engine or airframes, but the
Meat behind the control sticks.

Post by Gary Walker
By the way, does anyone know if Mosquitos were visible to the radar
of the day or not?

yep, a thousand pounds of metal in each wing driving a spinning
Prop, plus aluminized dope to preventUV damage to the Wood&Glue

less than a Lancaster, but still there

**
mike
**

k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

2005-08-04 15:27:59 UTC

Post by Gary Walker
With its four 20mm cannon, the Mosquito could wreak havoc on the
way back as the P-47s did.

You seem to be confusing the unarmed bomber versions with the armed
night-fighters. You could have bombs or guns, not both together.

Ken Young

Jamie McDonell

2005-08-05 02:30:06 UTC

Post by Gary Walker
With its four 20mm cannon, the Mosquito could wreak havoc on the
way back as the P-47s did.

You seem to be confusing the unarmed bomber versions with the armed
night-fighters. You could have bombs or guns, not both together.

You could (Mk VI). You just comprimised on both.

k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

2005-08-07 16:55:54 UTC

Post by Jamie McDonell
You could (Mk VI). You just comprimised on both.

I thought that was only issued to Coastal Command.

Ken Young

Angus McLellan

2005-08-07 21:16:03 UTC

Post by Jamie McDonell
You could (Mk VI). You just comprimised on both.

I thought that was only issued to Coastal Command.

I would have agreed, but I cheated by checking Bowyer's _Aircraft for
the Many_. He lists 35 operational FB Mk.VI's with 100 Group of Bomber
Command, 38 with ADGB, 110 with No. 2 Group of 2 TAF, and 26 with
Coastal Command.

Cheers,

Angus

--
"[T]he surest way not to have thoughts of our own is for us at
once to take up a book when we have a moment to spare." Arthur
Schopenhauer, On Thinking for Oneself.

Jack Linthicum

2005-08-04 12:00:04 UTC

The whole "schnellbomber" concept
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnellbomber) had all the holes that the
"bombers will get through" philosophy had and a light bomb load.
Eventually the Germans would have done their act with sector defense
and stripped down Me-109s and cleaned the Mosquito's clock. It was the
uniqueness of the Mosquito that made it effective sometimes, I seem to
remember a Mosquito raid against a prison holding important resistance
people that killed all the people they were supposed to save.

Henrik K

2005-08-04 12:12:42 UTC

That was the raid on the Shellhus in Copenhagen on 21 March 45, which
achieved its object in that it blew the side out of Gestapo HQ, but
sadly also hit the French School, killing a number of schoolgirls and -
from my perspective fortunately - not killing my mother.

http://www.milhist.dk/besattelsen/shell/shell.html refers.

Gary Walker

2005-08-04 12:50:33 UTC

Post by Jack Linthicum

In the pursuit of this thread, I have had a little look around the web. This
site http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/diary.html is the official RAF
diary (amongst other things) covering the second world war. Just look at the
raids Mosquitos carried out and look at some of the photo recon of these
raids. I know opposition to my theory viz Lancs/Mosquitos places me in a
minority of one, but look at the losses and the effects of some of these
raids. I'm sticking to my guns, especially as the factor of P51-D escorts
hasn't been countered yet.

One interesting feature of the above linked diary is the revelation (for me
anyway) of just how many small raids were made by Lockheed Venturas.

Jack Linthicum

2005-08-04 13:40:52 UTC

Post by Jack Linthicum

In the pursuit of this thread, I have had a little look around the web. This
site http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/diary.html is the official RAF
diary (amongst other things) covering the second world war. Just look at the
raids Mosquitos carried out and look at some of the photo recon of these
raids. I know opposition to my theory viz Lancs/Mosquitos places me in a
minority of one, but look at the losses and the effects of some of these
raids. I'm sticking to my guns, especially as the factor of P51-D escorts
hasn't been countered yet.
One interesting feature of the above linked diary is the revelation (for me
anyway) of just how many small raids were made by Lockheed Venturas.

If the P51D was the starting point it didn't get ordered until 1943,
that's four years of unescorted Mosquitos. Actually the Allison
Mustangs were good up to about 12,000 feet well below the Me-109's
service ceiling.

The American version
"During the second half of 1942 and much of 1943, U.S. heavy bombers
suffered great losses as they flew unescorted, daylight missions over
enemy territory. The new, high-altitude versions of the Mustang have
been heralded as the savior of the bombing campaign. But it must be
understood that the reason the bombers were not escorted by fighters
during the early months of America's involvement in the European
theater was a matter of choice and not because of a lack of adequate
fighters.

When he was in command of the 8th Air Force, General Ira Eaker did not
believe the bombers needed escort. He thought that the bombers'
defensive armament would be protection enough. High rates of losses
never deterred him from this belief. Accordingly, Eaker turned down the
P-38 Lightnings provided him to protect his bombers."
http://www.flightjournal.com/plane_profiles/p-51_mustang/p-51_mustang_history.asp

mike

2005-08-04 14:44:35 UTC

Post by Jack Linthicum
If the P51D was the starting point it didn't get ordered until 1943,
that's four years of unescorted Mosquitos. Actually the Allison
Mustangs were good up to about 12,000 feet well below the Me-109's
service ceiling.

But if the Mosquito (and Beaufighter,etc) raiders stays under 15k feet,
the Allison powered P-51 (and P-40 even) outperformed the Me-109.
Above that, the supercharger was unable to provide enough boost
to keep power up. Below that, they were fine. The P-40 did fine
in Russian skies, as the combat took place at lower altitudes.
Not many high flying Bombers to protect, but plenty of IL-2s

The Merlin powered P-51 had a two-stage,two speed supercharger
and proved fine for escorting high altitude Bombers. The P-40
that got the Merlin was still a single stage suprcharger, and didn't
have much better altitude performance than the Allison.

It's not like the US couldn't build a two stage supercharger,
as thats what the USN used in the Later versions of Wildcat, and all
Hellcats and Corsairs had that better supercharger.

**
mike
**

Michele Armellini

2005-08-04 14:26:01 UTC

Post by Gary Walker
In the pursuit of this thread, I have had a little look around the web. This
site http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/diary.html is the official RAF
diary (amongst other things) covering the second world war. Just look at the
raids Mosquitos carried out and look at some of the photo recon of these
raids. I know opposition to my theory viz Lancs/Mosquitos places me in a
minority of one, but look at the losses and the effects of some of these
raids.

But nobody says the Mosquitos can't carry out raids all by themselves. The
point is that they cannot effectively replace the Lancasters in inflicting
generalized, lasting damage on large industrial districts. And note that
some of the raids listed are exactly diversionary raids carried out against
targets that were worth attacking, yes, but still diversionary raids while
there were Lancaster raids going on during the same night against the real
McCoy. Other all-Mosquito raids were clearly meant to pursue the
round-the-clock bombing strategy - i.e., even if we can't send in a
significant force, tonight we'll still keep them awake with a token raid.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the photos made available are the most
flattering that can be found.

I'm sticking to my guns, especially as the factor of P51-D escorts

Post by Gary Walker
hasn't been countered yet.

I didn't address the point because that's obvious. If the bombers have
fighter escort their survivability will go up - of course. The point is
that, even if no Mosquitos are lost to enemy fighters, it still won't be
worth the effort.

Gary Walker

2005-08-04 15:14:22 UTC

Post by Gary Walker
In the pursuit of this thread, I have had a little look around the web.

This

Post by Gary Walker
site http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/diary.html is the official RAF
diary (amongst other things) covering the second world war. Just look at

the

Post by Gary Walker
raids Mosquitos carried out and look at some of the photo recon of these
raids. I know opposition to my theory viz Lancs/Mosquitos places me in a
minority of one, but look at the losses and the effects of some of these
raids.

But nobody says the Mosquitos can't carry out raids all by themselves. The
point is that they cannot effectively replace the Lancasters in inflicting
generalized, lasting damage on large industrial districts. And note that
some of the raids listed are exactly diversionary raids carried out against
targets that were worth attacking, yes, but still diversionary raids while
there were Lancaster raids going on during the same night against the real
McCoy. Other all-Mosquito raids were clearly meant to pursue the
round-the-clock bombing strategy - i.e., even if we can't send in a
significant force, tonight we'll still keep them awake with a token raid.
And I wouldn't be surprised if the photos made available are the most
flattering that can be found.
I'm sticking to my guns, especially as the factor of P51-D escorts

Post by Gary Walker
hasn't been countered yet.

OK, I'm still convinced that low level raids were more than just "worth the
effort" but a far more economical (in people,
bombs, aircraft and destruction) than the raids that took place with the
Lancaster fleet. But let's look at things another way.
Consider this reasoning;

"Soon Mosquito bombers became a vital part of the night operations too. In
early 1944 a bulged bomb bay was introduced to hold a 4000 lb 'cookie,'
doubling the bomb load. The combat introduction of the high-altitude B.XVI
version, which was even harder to intercept, was in March. A paper by the
Ministry or Aircraft production calculated that, before the aircraft was
lost, a Mosquito could be expected to drop an average of 1690 kg of bombs in
92 sorties. A Lancaster would drop 3370 kg on an average sortie, but
survived on average only 28 sorties, and cost 2.8 times as much as a
Mosquito. It could be concluded that the material cost per ton of bombs
dropped was at least four times lower for the Mosquito than for the
Lancaster. And the Mosquito had only one-fourth of the crew of the
Lancaster, so its use also reduced the loss of life. Evidently, such figures
are dependent on time, tactics, and circumstances, but they were
nevertheless evidence that the Mosquito had advantages that had to be
exploited. The "Light Night Strike Force" became an important part of Bomber
Command's No.8 Group; its operations included 170 attacks on Berlin."

'Flying Guns - World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and
Installations 1933-45', Emmanuel Gustin

And this man's opinion;

"The Führer then asks me over for a short visit. During the interview I have
with him he is very impressed by my account of things. I give him a
description of the devastation which is being wrought and tell him
particularly of the increasing fury of the Mosquito raids which take place
every evening. I cannot prevent myself voicing sharp criticism of Goring and
the Luftwaffe"

Goebbals diary 13th March 1945

I personally think that flying the Mossie at height (and bombing at height)
and losing accuracy would be a waste. I can't understand why you can't see
the
disireablilty of being able to strike, say, 30 different targets accurately
with the subsequent dispersal of fighter defences (and destruction of
fighter defences (which was a planned part of the USAAF tactic to draw
German fighters out so they could be attacked) by escorts). WI the
Schweinfurt raid was carried out by 200 Mosquitos escorted by P-38s??

ps Was the P-38 ever fitted with merlins?

Michele Armellini

2005-08-04 16:18:17 UTC

Post by Gary Walker
OK, I'm still convinced that low level raids were more than just "worth the
effort" but a far more economical (in people,
bombs, aircraft and destruction) than the raids that took place with the
Lancaster fleet. But let's look at things another way.

It depends what people and what destruction. De-housing the German
workforce, which as a rule lived not far from the factories, was not
considered a minus but a plus at the time.

A paper by the

Post by Gary Walker
Ministry or Aircraft production calculated that, before the aircraft was
lost, a Mosquito could be expected to drop an average of 1690 kg of bombs in
92 sorties. A Lancaster would drop 3370 kg on an average sortie, but
survived on average only 28 sorties, and cost 2.8 times as much as a
Mosquito. It could be concluded that the material cost per ton of bombs
dropped was at least four times lower for the Mosquito than for the
Lancaster. And the Mosquito had only one-fourth of the crew of the
Lancaster, so its use also reduced the loss of life. Evidently, such figures
are dependent on time, tactics, and circumstances,

Exactly. The tactics you propose would nullify the advantages. The Mosquito
would fly within the AA and fighter area of effect.

Post by Gary Walker
"The Führer then asks me over for a short visit. During the interview I have
with him he is very impressed by my account of things. I give him a
description of the devastation which is being wrought and tell him
particularly of the increasing fury of the Mosquito raids which take place
every evening. I cannot prevent myself voicing sharp criticism of Goring and
the Luftwaffe"
Goebbals diary 13th March 1945

Exactly. Note how this is a political opinion by a person concerned about
propaganda. It goes to demonstrating that carrying out raids _every evening_
has more of a _political, propagandistic_ effect than carrying out only
really effective raids only every now and then. You'll remember what I wrote
above about the round-the-clock concept.

Post by Gary Walker
I personally think that flying the Mossie at height (and bombing at height)
and losing accuracy would be a waste. I can't understand why you can't see
the
disireablilty of being able to strike, say, 30 different targets accurately
with the subsequent dispersal of fighter defences (and destruction of
fighter defences (which was a planned part of the USAAF tactic to draw
German fighters out so they could be attacked) by escorts). WI the
Schweinfurt raid was carried out by 200 Mosquitos escorted by P-38s??

First thing, the issue of fighter-vs-fighter interaction has nothing to do
with the kind of bombers and the kind of bomber attack strategy. If the
British had so wished, for the purposes of engaging enemy fighters, they
could have staged Circus-like operations just like they had done earlier in
the war; a handful of Lancasters escorted by large numbers of fighters.

Secondly, you yourself have already stated why very small individual raids
aren't the right way to go. Remember how the Himmelbett network worked.
Remember what you wrote about the German defenses being swamped by large
raids. Yes, the Mosquito was a smaller radar target. Nevertheless it would
appear on the screen.
I admit that the raids could penetrate the defenses as one or just a few
large groups, then separate. Not easy to arrive on the right target that
way, of course.

Thirdly, apart from fighters, there is the FlAK. As long as the bombers stay
high, it's not a real killer. But attacking 30 separate targets with 30
separate raids, regardless of the effects on the fighter defense network,
will do no good to the bombers if they have to fly within reach of light
FlAK (20mm or less), which neither the Lancasters not the Mosquitos did in
real practice, for real good reasons.

Gary Walker

2005-08-08 17:34:31 UTC

Post by Gary Walker
OK, I'm still convinced that low level raids were more than just "worth

the

Post by Gary Walker
effort" but a far more economical (in people,
bombs, aircraft and destruction) than the raids that took place with the
Lancaster fleet. But let's look at things another way.

It depends what people and what destruction. De-housing the German
workforce, which as a rule lived not far from the factories, was not
considered a minus but a plus at the time.
A paper by the

Post by Gary Walker
Ministry or Aircraft production calculated that, before the aircraft was
lost, a Mosquito could be expected to drop an average of 1690 kg of bombs

Post by Gary Walker
92 sorties. A Lancaster would drop 3370 kg on an average sortie, but
survived on average only 28 sorties, and cost 2.8 times as much as a
Mosquito. It could be concluded that the material cost per ton of bombs
dropped was at least four times lower for the Mosquito than for the
Lancaster. And the Mosquito had only one-fourth of the crew of the
Lancaster, so its use also reduced the loss of life. Evidently, such

figures

Post by Gary Walker
are dependent on time, tactics, and circumstances,

Exactly. The tactics you propose would nullify the advantages. The Mosquito
would fly within the AA and fighter area of effect.

And get many times the bombs on target

Post by Gary Walker
"The Führer then asks me over for a short visit. During the interview I

have

Post by Gary Walker
with him he is very impressed by my account of things. I give him a
description of the devastation which is being wrought and tell him
particularly of the increasing fury of the Mosquito raids which take place
every evening. I cannot prevent myself voicing sharp criticism of Goring

and

Post by Gary Walker
the Luftwaffe"
Goebbals diary 13th March 1945

there's nothing ineffective about precision bombing on an armaments factory.

Post by Gary Walker
I personally think that flying the Mossie at height (and bombing at

height)

Post by Gary Walker
and losing accuracy would be a waste. I can't understand why you can't see
the
disireablilty of being able to strike, say, 30 different targets

accurately

Post by Gary Walker
with the subsequent dispersal of fighter defences (and destruction of
fighter defences (which was a planned part of the USAAF tactic to draw
German fighters out so they could be attacked) by escorts). WI the
Schweinfurt raid was carried out by 200 Mosquitos escorted by P-38s??

When?

Remember how the Himmelbett network worked.

Post by Michele Armellini
Remember what you wrote about the German defenses being swamped by large
raids. Yes, the Mosquito was a smaller radar target. Nevertheless it would
appear on the screen.

We don't know that.

Post by Michele Armellini
I admit that the raids could penetrate the defenses as one or just a few
large groups, then separate. Not easy to arrive on the right target that
way, of course.
Thirdly, apart from fighters, there is the FlAK. As long as the bombers stay
high, it's not a real killer. But attacking 30 separate targets with 30
separate raids, regardless of the effects on the fighter defense network,
will do no good to the bombers if they have to fly within reach of light
FlAK (20mm or less), which neither the Lancasters not the Mosquitos did in
real practice, for real good reasons.

Mosquitos often attacked at low level and their losses were not great.

David Thornley

2005-08-04 19:58:10 UTC

Post by Gary Walker
Consider this reasoning;
"Soon Mosquito bombers became a vital part of the night operations too. In
early 1944 a bulged bomb bay was introduced to hold a 4000 lb 'cookie,'
doubling the bomb load. The combat introduction of the high-altitude B.XVI
version, which was even harder to intercept, was in March.

Okay, so your source implies that high-altitude raids are harder to
intercept.

A paper by the

Against defenses optimized against the Lancaster, of course. If you
assume that Bomber Command changes tactics, it's not sporting to assume
that the Germans don't. The Germans adapted nicely to new threats.

Post by Gary Walker
I personally think that flying the Mossie at height (and bombing at height)
and losing accuracy would be a waste.

Okay, then the figures above are completely inapplicable.

First, you're assuming that the Germans continue to optimize their
defenses against Lancasters.

Second, you're changing the tactics so that the Mossies will be much
more vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire and fighter interception.

I can't understand why you can't see

Post by Gary Walker
the
disireablilty of being able to strike, say, 30 different targets accurately
with the subsequent dispersal of fighter defences (and destruction of
fighter defences (which was a planned part of the USAAF tactic to draw
German fighters out so they could be attacked) by escorts).

One problem with this is that you're inflicting minor damage on thirty
different targets rather than hitting one or two really hard. As far
as destroying German fighter defenses, the USAAF did a good job of that
by itself. Historically, the USAAF strategic bombing forces and Bomber
Command attacked in two different ways, and it seems to me that this was
a Good Thing. There's no need for Bomber Command to become a second-
rate Eighth Air Force.

WI the

Post by Gary Walker
Schweinfurt raid was carried out by 200 Mosquitos escorted by P-38s??

What if it was carried out by B-17s escorted by P-38s? The USAAF did a
lot of very successful bombing with B-17s and B-24s escorted by P-51s
and P-38s. I don't see any reason to think that substituting Mosquitos
would be any improvement whatsoever.

The key difference between this and the 1943 Schweinfurt raids is the
escort, not the bomber type.

Post by Gary Walker
ps Was the P-38 ever fitted with merlins?

Didn't really need them. There was no reason why the Allison had to
have bad high-altitude performance. It was perfectly capable of being
fitted with turbochargers and/or superchargers, although the earlier
fighters using them didn't have these.

IIRC, there was a test of P-38s with Merlins, and the conclusion was
that it wasn't worthwhile changing over.

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
***@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

Gary Walker

2005-08-04 15:55:31 UTC

30/31 March 1944
This would normally have been the moon stand-down period for the Main Force,
but a raid to the distant target of Nuremberg was planned on the basis of an
early forecast that there would be protective high cloud on the outward
route, when the moon would be up, but that the target area would be clear
for ground-marked bombing. A Meteorological Flight Mosquito carried out a
reconnaissance and reported that the protective cloud was unlikely to be
present and that there could be cloud over the target, but the raid was not
cancelled.

795 aircraft were dispatched - 572 Lancasters, 214 Halifaxes and 9
Mosquitos. The German controller ignored all the diversions and assembled
his fighters at 2 radio beacons which happened to be astride the route to
Nuremberg. The first fighters appeared just before the bombers reached the
Belgian border and a fierce battle in the moonlight lasted for the next
hour. 82 bombers were lost on the outward route and near the target. The
action was much reduced on the return flight, when most of the German
fighters had to land, but 95 bombers were lost in all - 64 Lancasters and 31
Halifaxes, 11.9 per cent of the force dispatched. It was the biggest Bomber
Command loss of the war.

Most of the returning crews reported that they had bombed Nuremberg but
subsequent research showed that approximately 120 aircraft had bombed
Schweinfurt, 50 miles north-west of Nuremberg. This mistake was a result of
badly forecast winds causing navigational difficulties. 2 Pathfinder
aircraft dropped markers at Schweinfurt. Much of the bombing in the
Schweinfurt area fell outside the town and only 2 people were killed in that
area. The main raid at Nuremberg was a failure. The city was covered by
thick cloud and a fierce cross-wind which developed on the final approach to
the target caused many of the Pathfinder aircraft to mark too far to the
east. A 10-mile-long creepback also developed into the countryside north of
Nuremberg. Both Pathfinders and Main Force aircraft were under heavy fighter
attack throughout the raid. Little damage was caused in Nuremberg.

49 Halifaxes minelaying in the Heligoland area, 13 Mosquitos to
night-fighter airfields, 34 Mosquitos on diversions to Aachen, Cologne and
Kassel, 5 RCM sorties, 19 Serrate patrols. No aircraft lost.

What a dreadful waste of lives/aircraft/bombs/fuel.

Jamie McDonell

2005-08-05 02:21:19 UTC

Post by Jack Linthicum

FW190s, maybe, but the Me-109 was just about as stripped down as it
could be.

Post by Jack Linthicum
It was the
uniqueness of the Mosquito that made it effective sometimes, I seem to
remember a Mosquito raid against a prison holding important resistance
people that killed all the people they were supposed to save.

k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

2005-08-04 15:27:58 UTC

Post by Gary Walker
WI we had used daylight mosquito attacks instead of the 1000
bomber raids? Lancaster production (which was vast)

You need a different mindset at the Air Ministry. The heavy bomber
program originated in specifications issued in 1936, well before the
Mosquito was designed. The Mosquito was in fact a private venture as
an unarmed *wooden* aircraft was seen as retrogressive by the Air
Ministry.

Next, the heaviest bomb load a Mosquito could carry was one 4000lb
"cookie". To do the sort of damage required would take precision
bombing which was just not possible for the first two years of the
war. It took Oboe for accurate marking. The Mosquito was not immune to
fighters or Flak either.

Ken Young

Gary Walker

2005-08-04 15:39:35 UTC

Post by Gary Walker
With its four 20mm cannon, the Mosquito could wreak havoc on the
way back as the P-47s did.

You seem to be confusing the unarmed bomber versions with the armed
night-fighters. You could have bombs or guns, not both together.

Ken Young

Point taken. I didn't realise the bomber version carried no guns.