Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Mosquito as primary strategic bomber


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

Poll: Mosquito as primary strategic bomber (23 member(s) have cast votes)

Mosquito as primary strategic bomber

  1. Yes, replace RAF types at night (2 votes [8.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.33%

  2. Yes, replace USAAF types during the day (3 votes [12.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.50%

  3. Yes, replace RAF & USAAF types both night & day (8 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  4. No, could not be used as a strategic bomber (11 votes [45.83%])

    Percentage of vote: 45.83%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 Heräkulman Ruhtinas

Heräkulman Ruhtinas

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined 2 Years and 28 Days
  • 12 topics
  • LocationRiga, Latvia

Posted 15 September 2016 - 07:12 PM

H-R, you are correct, the bloody minded 'Butch' Harris was virtually 'Soviet-style' in the obdurate methods of 'strategic bombing' he employed.

I wonder if anyone has calculated how many thousands of R-R Merlin engines were 'exported' to German controlled areas - along with bombs & crews.

 

I just read the "1000-bomber raid" by Ralph Barker. He gives a rather different view on Harris that usually is depicted. Agree on Merlins, there have been a lot of those. Compared to bunch of Mossies, using 4-engine bombers seems awfully wasteful. 


  • Armand likes this

-<HR>-

Heräkulman Ruhtinas

Prince of Heräkulma

 


#22 [email protected]

[email protected]

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 2 Months and 22 Days
  • 18 topics
  • LocationTyne and Wear, United Kingdom

Posted 14 January 2017 - 01:51 PM

Just my thoughts, I think the mossie even though it could fly at altitude, would perform better at its intended role ,ground attack.it was fast ,manouverable, and had the fire power, from forward variation armament,from cannon to machine guns,and able to carry a varied bomb load at speed.I think the B17 And The Lancaster were the Main suitors for the bombing campaign over Germany, but the mosquito for me is an outstanding multi role ground attack aircraft.just my opinion guys...
Best regards..
Keith.

#23 [email protected]

[email protected]

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 2 Months and 22 Days
  • 18 topics
  • LocationTyne and Wear, United Kingdom

Posted 14 January 2017 - 02:02 PM

I would also just like to add, the fact that the Mosquito was an outstanding Aircraft at low level it also performs well as a night fighter,and also was used in the trials of the Barns Wallis Bouncing bomb, again proving its agility and versatility as a multi role Aircraft ,it also did very well combating enemy shipping as part of its contribution to battle of the Atlantic as I'm lead to believe,accompanied by beau fighters .So there is in my opinion a lot to be said for its role in ground Attack role.
Best regards
Keith....

#24 TheArtOfFlight

TheArtOfFlight

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Joined 7 Months and 22 Days
  • 5 topics
  • LocationUK

Posted 14 January 2017 - 03:57 PM

The Mossie could never have replaced the "heavies" simply because of the bomb carrying capacity. At least not British bombers. But with the huge loss rate of B-17s during daylight raids it has always amazed me just why the US didnt use this aircraft. The Canadians used it to great effect. And considering it could almost carry the same bomb load as a B-17. I think it was a terrible and huge loss/ of men and machines which was totally unnecessary. Im sure a lot of people will argue otherwise and im not singling out the B-17 as being a bad aircraft. Im simply stating the fact the Mossie had the least loss rate of any bomber during ww2 and was indeed a real multi purpose incredibly well conceived/designed aircraft. Infact i think it was nothing sort of genius on DeHavilland's part just as much as the Spitfire was for Mitchell. But hey this is just my opinion.



#25 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 3 Months and 17 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 14 January 2017 - 11:14 PM

Just my thoughts, I think the mossie even though it could fly at altitude, would perform better at its intended role ,ground attack.it was fast ,manouverable, and had the fire power, from forward variation armament,from cannon to machine guns,and able to carry a varied bomb load at speed.I think the B17 And The Lancaster were the Main suitors for the bombing campaign over Germany, but the mosquito for me is an outstanding multi role ground attack aircraft.just my opinion guys...
Best regards..
Keith.

 

The only offensive weapon, apart from bombs, that bomber versions of the Mosquito (B.IV, B.IX, B,XVI, B.XX, B.25, B.35) had were the obscenities the crew could shout at the enemy while attacking.



#26 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 3 Months and 17 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 15 January 2017 - 12:00 AM

The Mossie could never have replaced the "heavies" simply because of the bomb carrying capacity. At least not British bombers. But with the huge loss rate of B-17s during daylight raids it has always amazed me just why the US didnt use this aircraft. The Canadians used it to great effect. And considering it could almost carry the same bomb load as a B-17. I think it was a terrible and huge loss/ of men and machines which was totally unnecessary. Im sure a lot of people will argue otherwise and im not singling out the B-17 as being a bad aircraft. Im simply stating the fact the Mossie had the least loss rate of any bomber during ww2 and was indeed a real multi purpose incredibly well conceived/designed aircraft. Infact i think it was nothing sort of genius on DeHavilland's part just as much as the Spitfire was for Mitchell. But hey this is just my opinion.

 

The Mossie could not have done Hamburg or Dresden.

 

Nor could it do the jobs using the Tallboy, Grand Slam, or the ones using the 8,000lb HC or 12,000lb HC bombs.

 

But they certainly could hit oil facilities (as they did historically) and factories.

 

Several different bomb load-outs were proposed or trialled in Mosquito aircraft, but never used.

 

Such as 1 x 1,000lb GP + 2 x 500lb GP/MC, 2 x 1,000lb GP/MC/TI (10 MC and 2 GP bombs were used in such an installation, but many TIs were used in this configuration, as well as a single 1,000lb TI), 6 x 250lb TI (proposed, also proposed to carry 6 x 500lb MC - the basis for the Avro carrier stories?), 8 x 250lb* TI (actually fitted to a B.XVI as a trial installation, but not used) and a 2 x 2,000lb adaptor (for 2,000lb AP bombs, for anti-shipping duties).

 

The B.XVI could carry 5,000lb bombs on short range missions, consisting of 1 x 4,000lb HC/MC and 2 x 500lb MC (on the wings). Or a load of 6 x 500lb MC could be carried - 4 internally and 2 on the wings - for a total of 3,000lb.

 

They could also carry a  couple of different Small Bomb Containers, which could be filled with a few different types of cluster or incendiary bombs.

 

*The RAF, of course, immediately asked if 8 x 500lb MC bombs could be carried. de Havilland said that the load would put the aircraft outside its CoG limits and would be over its overload weight. The RAF then asked about 4 x 500lb + 4 x 250lb, which de Havilland took under consideration, but I have not seen a reply to that.



#27 Armand

Armand

    About the same age as another old Fokker: The F-27

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,592 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 6 Months and 30 Days
  • 108 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 15 January 2017 - 01:24 AM

The Mossie could not have done Hamburg or Dresden.
 
Nor could it do the jobs using the Tallboy, Grand Slam, or the ones using the 8,000lb HC or 12,000lb HC bombs.
 
 The B.XVI could carry 5,000lb bombs on short range missions, consisting of 1 x 4,000lb HC/MC and 2 x 500lb MC (on the wings). Or a load of 6 x 500lb MC could be carried - 4 internally and 2 on the wings - for a total of 3,000lb.
 


From south eastern England, there are only about 600 miles to Berlin.
The B XVI had a range a little shorter than the P-51 and did bring the cookie to Berlin.
  • TheArtOfFlight likes this

#28 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 3 Months and 17 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 15 January 2017 - 02:47 AM

From south eastern England, there are only about 600 miles to Berlin.
The B XVI had a range a little shorter than the P-51 and did bring the cookie to Berlin.

 

Yes, but with wing bombs the range was less.



#29 curmudgeon

curmudgeon

    Regular Member

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 7 Months
  • 26 topics

Posted 15 January 2017 - 10:37 AM

Yes, but with wing bombs the range was less.

Horses (or loads) for courses ... the Oboe guided Mosquito was the most accurate WW II bomber. The augmented range Oboe (with a Wellington intermediate transmitter) was tested against some eastern German harbour, with a notional target of a lock gate ... the lock gate was hit. The very first Oboe test involved hitting a nightfighter? officer accommodation in Belgium ... the building was demolished.

Had Oboe been set up in Italy then the Romanian oilfields could have been targetted ...

 

Wrt donation of Merlins to the Reich ... the air war went through several phases. First use of window dropped RAF losses markedly, but Luftwaffe tactics overcame this setback. The USAAF destruction of fuel and disruption of pilot training (helped all-weather by Mosquito intruders) and the introduction of 100 Group markedly reduced the export of Merlins to the Reich (late 1944). By 1945 approaches over France, together with the mauling the Luftwaffe fighters had got from the USAAF meant Lancasters were able to operate over Germany in daylight with relative impunity, consequently negligible export of Merlins.



#30 TheArtOfFlight

TheArtOfFlight

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Joined 7 Months and 22 Days
  • 5 topics
  • LocationUK

Posted 15 January 2017 - 05:44 PM

I think its certainly worth remembering that bomblaod capacity alone is/was by no means an absolute success. Accuracy was probably far more important (as the RAF bomber command found out early in 1941) when they realized that most of the bombs dropped were nowhere near their intended target. Neither was the Norden bombsight anywhere close to being as good as the fanfare suggested. Bombing accuracy in general during ww2 was very poor and haphazard from heavy high altitude slow moving bomber streams. The Mossie didnt need any offensive or defensive measures as its sheer speed and accuracy was its best attributes. That fact was proved time and again on various precision bombing missions such as operation Jericho (the attack on Amiens prison) I just think with the amount of allied bombers and crew that were lost during ww2 not utilizing the most potential of such a great aircraft like the Mosquito was quite bizarre. And with drop tanks the Mossie was capable of reaching anywhere in Germany. And as was stated above it could carry the British "cookie" as well as both explosive and incendiary bombs. One squadron could have carried a multitude of ordnance.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users