# WW2 Strategic Bomber Characteristics



## wuzak (Jan 16, 2013)

Which characteristics were the most important for WW2 era strategic bombers?

Bomb load?
Maximum bomb size?
Speed?
Defensive armament?
High operating altitude?
Armour?
Other?


Which could most be sacrificed in order to maximise the others?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 16, 2013)

Strategy.

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 16, 2013)

I'm a fan of the unarmed bomber, so ditch the gun weaponry (and the men manning it, and the life support for those, along with armor protecting them), so you can be reasonably fast.


----------



## davebender (Jan 16, 2013)

High cruise speed with payload means less time in enemy air space.

Cost is a characteristic few like to discuss. Heavy bombers are very expensive to purchase and operate. It was true during WWII and it's still true today. If the bomber is also inaccurate it makes you wonder if they are worth the price....


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 16, 2013)

> strategy



Yes.

The ability to carry a variety of weaponry increases the flexibility of operations and versatility of the aircraft.

Like Tomo, I think high speed unarmed bombers were a real asset and I think the concept was much underrated by all sides during the war.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 16, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes.
> 
> The ability to carry a variety of weaponry increases the flexibility of operations and versatility of the aircraft.
> 
> Like Tomo, I think high speed unarmed bombers were a real asset and I think the concept was much underrated by all sides during the war.



Apart from the Mosquito, were there any high speed unarmed bombers deployed during WW2?

Strategy is something determined by the command. As Nuuumannn says, flexibility in bomb loads will make a bomber suitable for a wider variety of tasks/strategies.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 16, 2013)

What types of bombs are best for strategic campaigns?

A large number of small bombs, or a small number of large bombs? Or intermediate numbers of medium sized bombs?

I guess that all depends on the type of target.
What about for oil refineries/synthetic oil plants?
Is it the same for industrial targets like airframe or engine manufacturers?


----------



## wuzak (Jan 16, 2013)

davebender said:


> High cruise speed with payload means less time in enemy air space.



And makes interception more difficult.





davebender said:


> Cost is a characteristic few like to discuss. Heavy bombers are very expensive to purchase and operate. It was true during WWII and it's still true today. If the bomber is also inaccurate it makes you wonder if they are worth the price....



Are strategic bombers necessarily heavy bombers?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 16, 2013)

Most British bombers (including the Battle) were "Strategic" bombers in 1939. They were _intended_ to bomb the potential enemies homeland, production, transport and cities. 

Likewise many other countries had large numbers of "light" and "medium" _STRATEGIC_ bombers. 

They were not intended to take part in the land battle in direct support of the army (Close support). They were not intended for interdiction missions ( bombing supply routes behind the lines). They were intended to take the battle to the enemies homeland and cities. 

They just weren't very good at it. Cities, factories and civilians proved to be much more resilient that most (all?) pre-war planners gave the them credit for. 

The Japanese used both single engine and twin engine bombers to bomb Chinese cities.

Is a plane used for mine laying doing tactical (sinking ships) or strategic (closing off a supply route or denying raw supplies) work?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 16, 2013)

i don't think that a small fast and unarmed bomber was the right reply
from the Neil file
Mosquito XVI range most economical cruise (245 mph) with 2,000 lbs of internal bombs 1,795 miles
Manchester as above (185 mph) with 8,100 lbs of internal bombs 1,630 miles and a Lancaster surely did better


----------



## parsifal (Jan 16, 2013)

I think range speed payload and structural strength are all significant. Other issues like defensive weapons are still significant, but less so than the abovementioned.

One thing I would mention that is not listed....accuracy. Not strictly part of the aircraft, but the guidance systems are as important as the payload, surely


----------



## wuzak (Jan 16, 2013)

Vincenzo said:


> i don't think that a small fast and unarmed bomber was the right reply
> from the Neil file
> Mosquito XVI range most economical cruise (245 mph) with 2,000 lbs of internal bombs 1,795 miles
> Manchester as above (185 mph) with 8,100 lbs of internal bombs 1,630 miles and a Lancaster surely did better



So, you are valuing load capacity over speed? 

Other posters mentioned high speed and unarmed. The Mosquito may have been the only operational aircraft by this description, but it may not be what they had in mind.

Handley Page's chief designed, Volkert, submitted a paper in 1937 outlining a high speed unarmed bomber to the basic requirements of P.13/36 - the specification that produced the Halifax and Manchester. This was to be powered by 2 Rolls-Royce Vultures, as per the Manchester (and the not proceeded with HP.56), have a bomb load of 6-8000lb and a max speed of 380mph. 

Would you still prefer the Lanc over such an aircraft?


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 16, 2013)

> Apart from the Mosquito, were there any high speed unarmed bombers deployed during WW2?



The Arado Ar 234 (although there were variants with defensive armament), hence my point. I'm sure its been mentioned in the past, but there were senior personnel within the RAF who believd that big, heavy bombers were a waste of man power etc once the Mosquito demonstrated how effective it could be and some even went as far as proposing (on paper anyway) that the heavy bombers be dispensed with and Bomber Command concentrate on re-equipping solely with bomber variants of the Mosquito. A rather rash and difficult decision considering everything already in place in Bomber Command by mid '42 - 43, but that's how some saw the value of the machine.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 16, 2013)

> One thing I would mention that is not listed....accuracy. Not strictly part of the aircraft, but the guidance systems are as important as the payload, surely



Most certainly - not just a good bomb sight once over the target, but what use is the best bomber in the world if it can't find its way to the target?

Effective radio navigation aids, countermeasures to jamming etc; the scientific stuff all became a vital part of waging a successful bombing campaign. The Luftwaffe was the first to effectively use radio navigation aids for finding and releasing their bombs on targets at night and in cloud during the invasion of Poland and subsequently during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz, years before Bomber Command would contemplate the idea, even when British scientists were hammering home how effective these aids were and could be. The Bomber boys refused to see that their astro naviagation and dead reckoning was not getting them to the targets and bombing as accurately as they were led to believe.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 17, 2013)

The daylight fast bomber can also make the escort's job easier - they don't have to ess in order to have their speed up (low speed makes escorts vulnerable to the enemy fighters), so they burn less fuel for distance covered. Faster bomber spends less time in the AAA 'kill area', reducing the number of salvos fired on the bomber stream, and making a job harder for the predictors, analog computers and inter-connected AAA to have accurate lead on the target. Another thing is that short night does not affect the sorties as much as it will do for slower bombers. The bomber can make most of the ingress during the night, bomb during the dawn and egress during morning. The interception of fast target during the night was never an easy job, the slower bombers being a far more awarding task. Another thing is that a 4-engined unarmed bomber can do with 4-5 crew members, hence easing it on manpower demands (both in numbers and in training), while suffering less human losses in case of being shot down. It's also less expensive to build (no power turrets, MGs ammo). 

The decently sized bomb bay is a prerequisite. Mosquito did have a decent bomb bay, but only when compared with twin-engined bombers, and once it was of bulged variety. The 4-engined bombers should have a bomb bay sized more or less like Lancaster have had, so any meaningful combination of bombs can be carried, depending on target type.


----------



## stona (Jan 17, 2013)

Bombers carrying large bomb loads are an inevitable result of the relative innaccuracy of bombing in WW2. In simple terms you needed a lot of bombers dropping a lot of bombs to effectively hit your target.
Even RAF raids carried out with the benefit of electronic aids,pathfinders,master bombers etc in late 1943 and later demonstrate this. Peenemunde springs to mind.

Using the RAF's standard Mk XIV bombsight in tests in March 1945, 9 Sqn ,bombing in daylight from 20,000ft achieved an average error of 195 yards. Using the more accurate but rare (about 1,000 manufactured) SABS MkllA bombsight, 617 Sqn achieved an average error of 125 yards at the same time. This was a specialist precision bombing unit,using the SABS operationally to drop special ordnance like Grand Slam and Tallboy.
The USAAF using their Norden sight rarely achieved even 9 Sqn's accuracy. Only 31% of american bombs landed within 1000 ft (call it 330 yards) of the target.

To be statistically certain of destroying a typical industrial building 200' x 200' you have to drop hundreds of bombs. 

In an ideal world a fast,unarmed bomber carrying a lighter load (like the Mosquito) might seem the solution but an ideal world it was not.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 17, 2013)

If one has a bomber force consisting from Mosquitoes, why wolud he bomb from 20000 ft? The XB-42 (Mixmaster) was said to be able to carry 8000 lbs, plenty of bombs for 2-engined job. A 4-engined unarmed bomber never existed (at least not in service)*, that one would be able to match any armed bomber in bomb hauling capacity. 

*neither did the 2-engined, unarmed bomber with some really powerful engines, like R-2800, Griffon, Sabre, or similar 2000+ HP hardware


----------



## stona (Jan 17, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> If one has a bomber force consisting from Mosquitoes, why wolud he bomb from 20000 ft?



I was assuming that the targets were defended.

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 17, 2013)

You could look at an A-26 for an idea of the performance to be had from a twin engine bomber using R-2800s ( at least without turbos), granted it was not unarmed but it only carried a three man crew (with glass nose). It was the first twin engine bomber to use a laminar flow wing, it was the first bomber to use double slotted flaps. 

It had a Radius of about 790-860 N miles (908-909 S miles) at about 10,000ft with 4000lb of bombs at _about 230mph_ economical cruise speed. max speed of 372mph at 10,000ft may have been using 2370 hp per engine using WER and water injection. 

It's wing was about 20% bigger than a Mosquito's wing but take-off weight could go to 37-40,000lbs. 

Yes you could ditch the turrets and the fixed guns and gain 1500-3000lb of bombs/fuel but you can't make the plane much smaller and still hold the extra fuel/bombs. You could add two stage superchargers or turbos for more altitude capability (Ceiling at "combat weight ( 29-32,000lbs) at max power with 500ft per minute in hand was about 22000-23400ft) but that takes volume and some of the saved weight from the guns. 

Bombing Berlin with a big twin with 5000lb of bombs (same load as a B-17) certainly seems _possible_ but the speed advantage may be a cruise of 230-250mph instead of the B-17s 180mph. 

Please remember that the a lot of the Mosquito's performance came from the 2 stage engines and was only shown in 1943. Decisions as to which types of bombers to use if you want them in large numbers in 1943 had to be made in 1941 at the latest. 

Granted there was a bit of messing around with the program and things were not pushed as fast as they could have been been but the first 3 A-26 prototypes were ordered in in mid 1941, well before Pearl Harbor. First combat use was in late 1944. Maybe you could speed up things so your "fast bomber" shows up in the Spring of 1944?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 17, 2013)

Wuzak i prefer a Lancaster over a paper plane. Draw a bomber is not the same that build it in hundreds/thousands


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 17, 2013)

stona said:


> I was assuming that the targets were defended.
> 
> Steve



No problems with the assumption, I was thinking the same. Mosquitoes were attacking defended targets from altitudes far under the 20000 ft, hence my comment.



Shortround6 said:


> You could look at an A-26 for an idea of the performance to be had from a twin engine bomber using R-2800s ( at least without turbos), granted it was not unarmed but it only carried a three man crew (with glass nose). It was the first twin engine bomber to use a laminar flow wing, it was the first bomber to use double slotted flaps.
> 
> It had a Radius of about 790-860 N miles (908-909 S miles) at about 10,000ft with 4000lb of bombs at _about 230mph_economical cruise speed. max speed of 372mph at 10,000ft may have been using 2370 hp per engine using WER and water injection.
> 
> ...



Thanks for pointing me to the A-26. Laminar-flow wings were not what one would expect in the early war plane, some 'classic' thin wings can come in play, when one wants high speed. Such a plane, but with a V-12 would come close to A-26 drag. 



> Bombing Berlin with a big twin with 5000lb of bombs (same load as a B-17) certainly seems _possible_ but the speed advantage may be a cruise of 230-250mph instead of the B-17s 180mph.



Think we should not expect from a twin-engined plane to beat a 4-engined plane in his game (bombload vs. range. vs. speed). 



> Please remember that the a lot of the Mosquito's performance came from the 2 stage engines and was only shown in 1943. Decisions as to which types of bombers to use if you want them in large numbers in 1943 had to be made in 1941 at the latest.



Agreed about the need to allocate crucial things in a timely manner.
No doubt that 2-stage Merlin gave the Mosquito another performance boost. The single stage versions were also speedy birds, eg. Mk.IV (bomber) maxing out at some 360-370 mph, cruising at 330-340 mph, and going even faster with revised exhaust system (circa +15 mph).



> Granted there was a bit of messing around with the program and things were not pushed as fast as they could have been been but the first 3 A-26 prototypes were ordered in in mid 1941, well before Pearl Harbor. First combat use was in late 1944. Maybe you could speed up things so your "fast bomber" shows up in the Spring of 1944?



USAF have had the twin R-2800 in use much earlier, flying sorties in Midway (B-26). They also have had the attack bomber with thin wings (A-20). USA also has had in production planes with Fowler flaps (by Lockheed). So there were no breakthroughs needed for a really fast bomber made in USA, in 1942.
USA was well capable to make a fast 4-engined bomber with R-2800, for 1942, and/or such a plane with turbos, for 1943.

re. A-26: we can note that plane was not using the last say about R-2800, it was using the single stage, B series engines. One can only wonder how fast it would be with 2-stager, or with turbo. +ADI?


----------



## stona (Jan 17, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> No problems with the assumption, I was thinking the same. Mosquitoes were attacking defended targets from altitudes far under the 20000 ft, hence my comment.



You can't compare the tactics used by handfuls of aircraft on special missions with those they could have used to carry out a strategic bombing campaign against some of the most heavily defended targets in the world at that time.

Altitude as well as speed was part of their defence.

I don't know what flak was around Amiens or Copenhagen,but it was irrelevant compared to any target in the Ruhr.

Bennet rejected the concept of low level marking for pathfinder Mosquitos,originally proposed by Chesire. It did happen when Harris transferred 627 squadron to 5 Group. Cochrane was a proponent of Chesire's scheme. 


Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 17, 2013)

It's my understanding that Mosquito bomber and pathfinder sorties, undertaken by night, suffered far less casualties per tonnage that hit home than other bombers. If someone can confirm, or disprove this, it would be nice to post it.

Smallish bombers can perform some things better than big ones. Eg. they can cruise at 25000 ft, make shallow fast dive to 15000 ft, level out, drop bombs and climb back, then head home. I agree that, if the tonnage dropped (not tonnage that hit home) is the game breaker, one needs twice (maybe more?) twin-engined planes vs. 4 engined ones, so here such an unarmed bomber comes to play.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 17, 2013)

i think you need 5 mosquito for the same load of 1 lancaster and probably lancaster has advantage in range


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 17, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Thanks for pointing me to the A-26. Laminar-flow wings were not what one would expect in the early war plane, some 'classic' thin wings can come in play, when one wants high speed. Such a plane, but with a V-12 would come close to A-26 drag.



Just pointing it out as a benchmark, you are unlikely to much better. 



tomo pauk said:


> USAF have had the twin R-2800 in use much earlier, flying sorties in Midway (B-26). They also have had the attack bomber with thin wings (A-20). USA also has had in production planes with Fowler flaps (by Lockheed). So there were no breakthroughs needed for a really fast bomber made in USA, in 1942.
> USA was well capable to make a fast 4-engined bomber with R-2800, for 1942, and/or such a plane with turbos, for 1943.
> 
> re. A-26: we can note that plane was not using the last say about R-2800, it was using the single stage, B series engines. One can only wonder how fast it would be with 2-stager, or with turbo. +ADI?



It depends on how fast you want to go and how far. The A-20 carried 400 US gallons in the wing. The A-26 carried 400 US gallons in _each_ wing. 

Original B-26B had a number of combinations such as 962 US gallons in the wing plus two 250 US gallon tanks in the bomb bay giving a range of nearly 2000 miles in 9.7 hours while carrying a 1500lb bomb load. With 962 gallons and at max cruise 4000lb could be carried 550 miles in two hours. Armament was two .50s in the power turret, two .50s in the tail and ONE .30 OR .50 in the nose and one .30 OR .50 out the bottom. Early B-26s with a top speed of 315mph had a the twin .50 turret, a .30 out the nose and another out the bottom and singe .50 in the tail. 

If you want R-2800s you are going to have to feed them  

You may want to look at the F7F Tigercat fuel capacity (375-455 US gallons internal (two seater-single seater)) cruise speeds ( 177-235mph) and ranges (810-1200 miles). You aren't going to get much smaller than an F7F with two R-2800s and it doesn't have a bomb bay.


----------



## stona (Jan 17, 2013)

Bomber Command Mosquitos flew 39,795 sorties for 260 losses to all causes. A measley 0.65%

The figure is 2.20% for the Lancaster and 2.28% for the Halifax.

It makes the "what aircraft would you want to fly in WW2 question a no brainer 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 17, 2013)

yes but also Lancaster miss 1 each 182 tons of bomb dropped, Mosquito miss 1 each 106 tons of bomb dropped 
Mosquito scrapped plane 56% of operational missing (so total loss 1%, 1 each 68 ton of bombs)
Lancaster scrapped plane 15% of operational missing (so total loss 2.45%, 1 each 159 ton of bombs)

Lancaster average bomb load in bombing 4.49 tons
Mosquito average bomb load in bombing 1.08



source lancaster-archive.com, calculations mine


----------



## stona (Jan 17, 2013)

Vincenzo said:


> yes but also Lancaster miss 1 each 182 tons of bomb dropped, Mosquito miss 1 each 106 tons of bomb dropped
> Mosquito scrapped plane 56% of operational missing (so total loss 1%, 1 each 68 ton of bombs)
> Lancaster scrapped plane 15% of operational missing (so total loss 2.45%, 1 each 159 ton of bombs)
> 
> ...



Statistics! Factor in the cost of a sortie for example. Or the cost of the aircraft. A Mosquito cost about 1/3 the price of a lancaster 

At least with percentage loss by sorties we are comparing apples with apples.

Steve


----------



## davebender (Jan 17, 2013)

22 Ju-288 airframes built.
289 Jumo 222 engines built.
.....Enough to provide historical performance data.

Very fast. Carried a decent size internal bomb load. Less expensive then 4 engine bombers. If I were going to procure a WWII era strategic bomber it would look a lot like the Ju-288.
.....U.S. version powered by two R-2800 radial engines.
.....British version powered by two Napier Sabre engines. Or else have Packard build R-2800 engines for RAF Bomber Command.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 17, 2013)

Vincenzo said:


> i think you need 5 mosquito for the same load of 1 lancaster and probably lancaster has advantage in range



It was 4:1? 



Shortround6 said:


> Just pointing it out as a benchmark, you are unlikely to much better.
> 
> It depends on how fast you want to go and how far. The A-20 carried 400 US gallons in the wing. The A-26 carried 400 US gallons in _each_ wing.



Was the A-20 carrying 400 gals in wings because of it was to be used in 'attack' role, ie. for the tasks close to the airbase? 
Looking at the diagram, the space in wings does not seem like a space well used, ie. no fuel tanks aft main spar, while the outboard fuel tank is rather short, and no fuel (worth speak about) is in nacelles. Late P-38, in a smaller wing, was carrying 10 gals more. Further, no fuel was carried between inboard tanks. So there was plenty of space available, later versions carrying 144 USG in upper bomb bay, and later even more, 326 USG, as one can see in the tables kindly provided by Neil Stirling. With 726 USG it was able to carry 2000 lbs, range being 1570 HP on 2 x 1600 HP. 
If we want to be strict, the A-26 carried only 100 gals in each wing, along with 300 in each nacelle. Plus the permanent fuel tank above beomb bay, plus wing drop tanks (being a more flexible thing than under-belly tank available for A-20). 



> Original B-26B had a number of combinations such as 962 US gallons in the wing plus two 250 US gallon tanks in the bomb bay giving a range of nearly 2000 miles in 9.7 hours while carrying a 1500lb bomb load. With 962 gallons and at max cruise 4000lb could be carried 550 miles in two hours. Armament was two .50s in the power turret, two .50s in the tail and ONE .30 OR .50 in the nose and one .30 OR .50 out the bottom. Early B-26s with a top speed of 315mph had a the twin .50 turret, a .30 out the nose and another out the bottom and singe .50 in the tail.



Thanks for the numbers. 
Early B-26 have had it's issues. The wing was tick, but of small area (for weight carried), and with flaps being only inboard. Net result was a plane that neither gave good turn of speed, nor it was easy to fly on lower speeds.



> If you want R-2800s you are going to have to feed them
> You may want to look at the F7F Tigercat fuel capacity (375-455 US gallons internal (two seater-single seater)) cruise speeds ( 177-235mph) and ranges (810-1200 miles). You aren't going to get much smaller than an F7F with two R-2800s and it doesn't have a bomb bay.



Yes, indeed. A plane sized between A-20 and A-26, that could carry 850 gals, plus a worthwhile bomb load to a good distance. Maybe you could check the values for the F7F, the cruise speeds for the Boston IV were 210-270 mph (most economic and max power on lean mixture).

added: fuel systems of A-20 A-26


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 17, 2013)

Getting back to the original question:

WW2 Strategic Bomber Characteristics:

The most important one wasn't listed. 

The most important is enough range to hit a strategic target. Required range changed with theater and as front lines (possible bases) shifted. Also as enemies changed or enemies changed location of strategic targets. Like Russian transfer of industry to the Urals or beyond. 

Once you have range ( and the navigational ability to _find_ the target) then you can worry about bomb load (target effect) vs survivability ( losses low enough to sustain campaign). Speed, Defensive armament, High operating altitude, Armour all come under survivability.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 17, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> It was 4:1?




from my post 10th:
Mosquito XVI range most economical cruise (245 mph) with 2,000 lbs of internal bombs 1,795 miles
Manchester as above (185 mph) with 8,100 lbs of internal bombs 1,630 miles

so need 4 Mosquito for a Manchester with range advantage for Mosquito

my post 24th: need 5 Mosquito for 1 Lancaster with range advantage for Lancaster

my estimation on Lancaster capability from Manchester data


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 17, 2013)

Good points, people. 
Think we can agree that, in order to reach a distant target with meaningful bomb load and survivability, the 4-engined plane is needed.


----------



## davebender (Jan 17, 2013)

With WWII era bomb sights high operating altitude almost guarantees poor accuracy. If you aren't going to hit the target then why bomb at all?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 17, 2013)

Well, you could always dive bomb..........

We know how that worked out.........

great if the defenders don't have any anti-aircraft guns, barrage balloons, smoke generators or defending aircraft.


If they do.........


----------



## parsifal (Jan 17, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Good points, people.
> Think we can agree that, in order to reach a distant target with meaningful bomb load and survivability, the 4-engined plane is needed.



Absolutely not. Mosquitoes could deliver a 1500 lb bomb load all the way to Berlin, bomb the target twice, in the same time it took a Stirling to deliver a 3000 lb load, buit suffer 4 to 5 times the loss rates. Mosquitoes were the designated precision bombing aircraft and selected as Pathfinders for the bombing force for a reason. 

Dont be fooled by the LW ra ra boys. They want to discount the best wepons in the allied arsenal every time


----------



## Aozora (Jan 17, 2013)

wuzak said:


> What types of bombs are best for strategic campaigns?
> 
> A large number of small bombs, or a small number of large bombs? Or intermediate numbers of medium sized bombs?
> 
> ...


 
What was needed was an airframe capable of carrying a combination of loads so that bomb types and sizes could be adapted to the target requirements: for example, there are plenty of instances where factory buildings were demolished by bombs of up to 1,000lbs, but the machine tools and other vital equipment remained intact, enabling a new plant to be set up very quickly.


----------



## Glider (Jan 17, 2013)

Aozora said:


> What was needed was an airframe capable of carrying a combination of loads so that bomb types and sizes could be adapted to the target requirements: for example, there are plenty of instances where factory buildings were demolished by bombs of up to 1,000lbs, but the machine tools and other vital equipment remained intact, enabling a new plant to be set up very quickly.



That more or less rules out the b17/B24 (according to some)


----------



## mhuxt (Jan 17, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Absolutely not. Mosquitoes could deliver a 1500 lb bomb load all the way to Berlin, bomb the target twice, in the same time it took a Stirling to deliver a 3000 lb load, buit suffer 4 to 5 times the loss rates. Mosquitoes were the designated precision bombing aircraft and selected as Pathfinders for the bombing force for a reason.
> 
> Dont be fooled by the LW ra ra boys. They want to discount the best wepons in the allied arsenal every time


 
Actually, Mosquitos were taking 4,000 lb loads to Berlin, in the shape of "cookies", also, apparently, referred to as "dangerous dustbins." And yes, they could do it twice in one night, though I think not as frequently as may be thought.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 17, 2013)

mhust what is the source of Mosquito with 4,000 lbs on Berlin?

parsifal Stirling is a older plane.
Lancaster was the newest 4 engined (and however go in mission before of Mosquito bomber), and the mosquito has not twice the speed (probably 200 vs 245 in most economical and 250 vs 320 in max weak)


----------



## mhuxt (Jan 17, 2013)

As for duelling statistics, Sharp Bowyer give the average load per Lanc sortie as 3.9 tons (don't ask me if long or short). 

In September '43, the Air Ministry did a calculation of economic efficiency of Mossies vs. Lancs. The data they had for average Lanc load for June and July '43 was 7,450 lbs. 

So, about 2 Mossies per Lanc, in terms of absolute load actually carried, assuming Mk.XVI and cookie, of course.

I suppose I'll allow myself a little thread creep, as economics has been referred to above. 

AVIA 46/116
Mossie: 92 sorties per write-off
Lanc: 28 sorties per write-off

Average Cookie Mossie load: 4,000 lb
Average Lanc load June July 1943: 7,450 lb (don't ask me, I'm only the messenger)

Therefore:

Moss/Lanc relative effectiveness =

(92 sorties * 4,000 lb / 30,000 man hours) 
__________________________________

(28 sorties * 7,450 lb / 84,000 man hours)

= 12.25 lbs bombs dropped per man hour / 2.48 lbs dropped per man hour

= 4.95 Coste effectiveness (i.e. Mossie is 4.95 times as cost effective as the Lanc)

It also notes that the "life load" of one Lanc, given the above life expectancies and weights carried, is less than 60% of that of the Mossie (while costing 3 times as much labour and using twice as many Merlins). It also notes, to use their term, that "crew wastage" in the Lanc is 4 (sic) times higher.

As a reference, here's a graph of Bomber Command loss rates (month-by-month and cumulative) excluding the Mosquito force (LNSF), versus the loss rates (again, month-by-month and cumulative) for the Mosquito force.







Bear in mind there was a large drop in the cumulative loss rate towards the end of the war as the number of BC sorties jumped, thus:






Hope not too much thread creep.


----------



## mhuxt (Jan 17, 2013)

Hi Vincenzo,

Sharp Bowyer's "Mosquito" primarily, they provide a table with all Mosquito sorties to Berlin, month-by-month January to May '45, with one column listing the number of cookied dropped, again by month, 1,459 in total. Also checked Barry Blunt's "571 Mosquito Squadron" as a double-check on the "two-in-a-night" claim to back up another table in Sharp Bowyer.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 17, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm a fan of the unarmed bomber, so ditch the gun weaponry (and the men manning it, and the life support for those, along with armor protecting them), so you can be reasonably fast.



You mean like the Japanese.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 17, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Hi Vincenzo,
> 
> Sharp Bowyer's "Mosquito" primarily, they provide a table with all Mosquito sorties to Berlin, month-by-month January to May '45, with one column listing the number of cookied dropped, again by month, 1,459 in total. Also checked Barry Blunt's "571 Mosquito Squadron" as a double-check on the "two-in-a-night" claim to back up another table in Sharp Bowyer.



if the average load is 1.09 it's so strange that so long mission had a larger load, but if was so was so. Probably so late in war they were used more near to the limit

on your comparison you can't compare lancaser average in summer '43 with a choice load (max) of Mosquito, also in the '45 raid over Berlin the average for the Mosquito is 1.15 ton


----------



## wuzak (Jan 17, 2013)

Vincenzo said:


> if the average load is 1.09 it's so strange that so long mission had a larger load, but if was so was so. Probably so late in war they were used more near to the limit
> 
> on your comparison you can't compare lancaser average in summer '43 with a choice load (max) of Mosquito, also in the '45 raid over Berlin the average for the Mosquito is 1.15 ton



Many Mossies still in service were B.IV/B.XX types, and most of them weren't converted to carry the 4000lb bombs, so they were stuck with 2000lb internal (ie 1 short ton).

Many Mossies were involved in pathfinding and marking operations, which required the use of target indicators, which could be 500lb or 1000lb bombs - again a maximum of 2000lb. This all serves to bring the average down.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 17, 2013)

First Mosquito raid carrying 4,000 lb bombs was against Dusseldorf on 23/24 February 1944, 627 Sqn. First attack on Berlin 13-14 April 1944 by eight Mosquito XVIs of 692 Sqn., each also equipped with 2 x 50 gal drop tanks. By the end of April 692 Sqn had flown 200 sorties, dropped nearly 200 4,000 pounders with no losses. Between 15 July to 15 August '44 Mosquitos dropped 336 4,000 pounders on Berlin. (Sharp and Bowyer pages 308-312).


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 17, 2013)

just need to know if pathfinding missions are counted as bombing mission 
the Mosquito has the higher miscellaneous operations in the count , for the mosquito 39% of bombing mission, for the lancaster only the 3%


----------



## parsifal (Jan 17, 2013)

Vincenzo said:


> mhust what is the source of Mosquito with 4,000 lbs on Berlin?
> 
> parsifal Stirling is a older plane.
> Lancaster was the newest 4 engined (and however go in mission before of Mosquito bomber), and the mosquito has not twice the speed (probably 200 vs 245 in most economical and 250 vs 320 in max weak)



Half right. Stirling first flew May 1939, entered squadron service end of 1940, was the main heavy type 1941-3, started to fade from the latter part of 1943.

De Havilland Mosquito was conceived in 1938, and could have had its first flight in 1939, that is, at the same time as the Stirling. RAF scepticism delayed the Mossies first flight until 1940. First flight was in early 1940, less than a year after the Stirling, and squadron service was from July 1941, again within a year of the Stirling.

However, Mosquitoes could easily have entered service before the Stirling, in fact have been in quantity use even before the Heavy was ready for entry to service. The basic idea behind the Mosquito was something the company had been working on since 1936.

Your figures for ecomic cruising speed are differnt to what i understand. the type could "cruise to Berlin and back at just over 300 mph (in fact at 320mph) carrying a 1500 lb bombload. Your figures I think (but I havent checked) appear to relate to a Mosquito in an overladen condition, ie carrying a 4000 lb bomb at maximum range, which is somewhere beyond Berlin.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 17, 2013)

The key to a successful bombing campaign is the destruction of the intended target, or the neutralisation of a force brought about by the destruction of key targets. Bearing this in mind, a fleet of 100 Mosquitoes can be as effective at doing so as a fleet of 100 Avro Lancasters.

The determining factor is accuracy of the delivery of the bomb load, not necessarily the size of it. A Mosquito could be as accurate a bomber as a Lancaster and had a higher probability of getting home safely.

The reason why the RAF developed its area bombing policy was because of a lack of accuracy in finding and destroying its targets. During the Blitz, the Luftwaffe had the means to deliver a specific bomb load onto a precise target, but did not successfully pursue this course of action as effectively as it could have. The bombing and subsequent disruption of production at the Hillington Rolls Royce plant at Glasgow proved to be of greater strategic value to the Germans than the bombing of Coventry. They had the means of really disrupting British military production, but did not act on it as effectively as they could have, not to forget the effectiveness of British countermeasures to their radio guidance systems, which gave them their potentially formidable accuracy. The heaviest internal bomb load carried by any of its bombers was around 1,000 kg aboard the He 111.

By 1943 - '44 a lot had changed in the size of load available and the accuracy at placing the load, but the objective was the same. In hindsight, area bombing of cities proved ineffective at bringing a civilian population to suing for peace, although the destruction of Hamburg and other German centres through this policy no doubt provided a certain hindrance to Germany's war plans. Nevertheless, the devastation of factories, ports, transport infrastructure etc was what was going to bring about a quicker end to a bombing campaign than devastating cities in the hope that railways and a few factories will get burned out.

Bearing this in mind, accuracy of the placement of a particular bombload is of supreme importance. This could be achieved with advanced radio navigation aids and an effective bomb sight. The qualities inherent in a particular aircraft design that gives it better survivability are a distinct advantage; being able to reach the target and successfully return to be able to be used again without being lost in barely sustaineable numbers due to enemy defences. Yes, the size of bomb load is important, but if the target can be neutralised using smaller, more survivable aircraft than larger types, then why waste resources?


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 17, 2013)

Add to this effective post raid reconnaissance so you can see how accurate your previous night's work was. You can even use the same airframe as your bomber force, if you like.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 17, 2013)

I just dont get these aleged performance figures. I just went to the RAE Test results to check

Mosquito Performance Trials

and it says that the max continuous cruise speed for a BIV carrying 2000 lb bombload was 330 mph.

RAAF testing of its PRU (no bombs, but PR gear and max fuel) Mk 40s flying from Northern Australia to the Northern coast of Borneo (a bloody long way) was 270 mph. 

Im not sure where these figures of 250 mph max sustained cruise speeds are coming from, but they are not the figures Ive ever seen.

In any event, if you want to believe or claim the Mossies was only as fast as a Lanc, or just slightly better, go ahead, knock yourself out. Bottom line is this, LW fighters found the Mossie to be so fast, even under fully loaded conditions, that they could not catch them. It was one of the main reasons why Mossie loss rates were so low, and why the Mossie could udertake significant high risk deep penetration raids day or night into occupied Europe and Germany.


----------



## mhuxt (Jan 18, 2013)

Vincenzo said:


> Mosquito average bomb load in bombing 1.08
> 
> 
> 
> source lancaster-archive.com, calculations mine



That source includes 100 Group (Bomber Support, basically long-range night-fighting and intruder sorties, at both high and low level) in the total for Mosquitos. Bombing sorties should be 27,069 for ops in 8 Group, another 266 for night ops up to April '43, and 727 (IIRC) for daylight bomber ops in 2 Group. Those 11,046 "Miscellaneous Ops" are 100 Group. I believe the total of 28.639 at that site will include weather sorties by 1409 Flight, 1,364 in total according to my info.

Strikes me as perfectly legitimate to compare a cookie Mossie with most recent Lanc stats, as the goal was to decide how to build a strategic bomber force, making best use of crew, material and time. Good argument for getting away from the heavies, but for my money BC was committed by that point.


----------



## stona (Jan 18, 2013)

davebender said:


> With WWII era bomb sights high operating altitude almost guarantees poor accuracy. If you aren't going to hit the target then why bomb at all?



But you could hit a target. You just needed hundreds of bombers dropping a lot of ordnance to have a good statistical chance of doing so. That's why it was done that way.

If they'd had a system capable of dropping a bomb down a chimney stack like today then that's how it would have been done,but they didn't.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Jan 18, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Mosquitoes were the designated precision bombing aircraft and selected as Pathfinders for the bombing force for a reason.



The Mosquito wasn't the designated precision bombing aircraft. Most precision bombing was done by Lancasters with the more accurate SABS dropping ordnance that the Mosquito couldn't lift.
9 and 617 squadrons were designated precision bombing units within mainforce,both flying Lancasters.
The Mosquitos carried out the famous special low level raids with mixed results.

It took until August 1942 for Harris to be allowed to found the Pathfinder Force. The last hurdle to be cleared was finance. Harris wanted Pathfinder crews to be promoted one rank to compensate for the danger inherent in a longer tour and this cost money which the Treasury,as ever,was unwilling to part with. 

Initially the Force operated four types,Lancasters,Halifaxes,Stirlings and Wellingtons.In the same month (August) 109 squadron became the first experimental "Oboe" unit,flying Wellingtons.

The first target marking bombs became available in January 1943,the same month that the Pathfinders were given Group status,becoming 8 Group.

It is a common misconception that the Mosquito was _the _ Pathfinder aircraft. 8 Group's Wellingtons (305 sorties) Stirlings (826 sorties) and even Halifaxes (2,106 sorties) were abandoned fairly soon but they flew 19,601 Lancaster sorties. In total the Group flew 22,838 sorties with their "heavies" with a loss rate of 2.5%. That compares with 28,215 sorties with Mosquitos with a loss rate of 0.4%. Not all those Mosquito flights were target marking. The operations of 1409 (meteorological) flight which was part of 8 Group,are included in the total.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## parsifal (Jan 18, 2013)

thanks steve, Ive learnt something


----------



## Aozora (Jan 18, 2013)

stona said:


> Bombers carrying large bomb loads are an inevitable result of the relative innaccuracy of bombing in WW2. In simple terms you needed a lot of bombers dropping a lot of bombs to effectively hit your target.
> Even RAF raids carried out with the benefit of electronic aids,pathfinders,master bombers etc in late 1943 and later demonstrate this. Peenemunde springs to mind.
> 
> Using the RAF's standard Mk XIV bombsight in tests in March 1945, 9 Sqn ,bombing in daylight from 20,000ft achieved an average error of 195 yards. Using the more accurate but rare (about 1,000 manufactured) SABS MkllA bombsight, 617 Sqn achieved an average error of 125 yards at the same time. This was a specialist precision bombing unit,using the SABS operationally to drop special ordnance like Grand Slam and Tallboy.
> ...



For interest, here are the Mk XIV and SABS:















(From Dambusters Owner's Workshop Manual, Ian R Murray, Haynes 2011).
It could have been a very different strategic bombing campaign had the British adopted - or been able to adopt - Barnes Wallis' concepts for streamlined "earthquake" bombs (Tallboy and Grand Slam) early in the war, plus the high altitude, high speed bombers capable of carrying them, along with the precision sights such as Mk XIV and SABS. Again, it was not an ideal world.


----------



## Glider (Jan 18, 2013)

stona said:


> The Mosquito wasn't the designated precision bombing aircraft. Most precision bombing was done by Lancasters with the more accurate SABS dropping ordnance that the Mosquito couldn't lift.



I think it would be fairer to say that the Mosquito and the Lancaster were the designated precision bombers. The difference was of course the payload and the ability to survive.

With the huge cost and effort that went into building the abnormal Tallboy and Grandslam bombs and specialised aircraft to carry them it is obvious that special crews were needed.

As for the normal pathfinder missions is it true to say that both Mosquito's and Lancaster bore the brunt in the last 12/18 months of the war. Mosquitos were also used for the spoof raids and small nuicence raids designed to basically keep the germans awake. Without the protection of the 'herd' or main force Lancasters would have been too slow and vulnerable in this role. 

If sufficient Mosquito's had been available would they have replaced the Lancaster in the Pathfinder role, frankly who knows. Its a guess and only a guess but I think they probably would. If only for two reasons:-
a) the pathfinder units were manned by the best and most experienced crews in the RAF and it would make sense to give them the maximum chance of survival
b) it would release Lancasters for the main force where the weight of bambs carried would be so important.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 18, 2013)

Parsifal: Stirling first flight May '39, Mosquito first flight November '40. My cruise figure were from RAF data card of B XVI of 1.5.44 and max weak figure was 311 mph not 320 mpg (is 321 in backward), that of Lancaster were my estimation from Manchester data card. The range of B.XVI with 2,000 lbs at max weak is 1165 miles, so i don't think that Berlin it's in the range at max weak, calculating reserve and that the route in not a straight line (obviously w/o drop tank)

Wuzak: however Lancaster can fly over Berlin with 14,000 lbs so in a logical comparation you need compare Mosquito with 4,000 to Lancaster with 14,000 or you can comapre actual average laod with actual average load. Imho the pathfinding mission was counted in miscellaneus operations


----------



## mhuxt (Jan 18, 2013)

I'm going to need some convincing that the Lanc went to Berlin with 14k. The ORB pages that I'm looking at over at the 156squadron.com site show 10k, journey took 7 hours. The Mossie logs I've seen say 4 1/4 - 4 1/2 for Berlin.

I suppose you can believe anything you want about the miscellaneous ops, but I'm telling you, the ops for the bomber units are laid out squadron by squadron, month by month in Sharp Bowyer's book.

Oh, and an XVI with 2k isn't going to have wing bombs, it will either have "clean" wings or drop tanks, which took about 6 mph off total speed, less than the bombs and their accompanying gear.

Beyond that, I can really no longer be bothered, especially as it's now well off topic.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 18, 2013)

Matt308 said:


> You mean like the Japanese.



No, Japanese bombers (at least vast majority of them) were featuring defensive guns gunners.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 18, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> I'm going to need some convincing that the Lanc went to Berlin with 14k. The ORB pages that I'm looking at over at the 156squadron.com site show 10k, journey took 7 hours. The Mossie logs I've seen say 4 1/4 - 4 1/2 for Berlin.
> 
> I suppose you can believe anything you want about the miscellaneous ops, but I'm telling you, the ops for the bomber units are laid out squadron by squadron, month by month in Sharp Bowyer's book.
> 
> ...



i've writed the reply to wuzak&parsifal before to read your 52nd post.
AFAIK the Lancaster radius with a 22,000 lbs bomb is 775 miles well beyond Berlin so can do the same with the 14,000 load


----------



## stona (Jan 18, 2013)

Glider said:


> a) the pathfinder units were manned by the best and most experienced crews in the RAF and it would make sense to give them the maximum chance of survival.



I'm afraid that this is something of a myth too.

The Pathfinder crews were drawn from regular squadrons and did not have any special qualifications.The various Groups were supposed to send their best crews but as Bennett noted 4 and 6 Groups loyally did so whilst the AOC's of other Groups were less scrupulous,sometimes simply sending men that they wanted rid of. 
They did receive extra training,a two week course at Warboys, and were expected to complete a minimum of 45 rather than 30 missions in order to maximise the benefits of the extra investment.

The vast majority of Pathfinder crews were men who had completed 10-15 missions with Main Force who then either volunteered for,or were drafted into the Pathfinders. They were not otherwise remarkable. A very small number of crews who had shown exceptional promise in training went directly to the Pathfinders. Another minority was men on their second or third tours who were extremly proficient and simply wanted to carry on until the war ended or the grim reaper intervened.
One 44 Sqn crew was "volunteered" for the Pathfinders simply to get the pilot away from the base commanders WAAF driver!
It was not unheard of for tight knit crews to seperate prior to joining the Pathfinder Force. Some men wanted nothing to do with an extended 45 mission tour.

There was much controversy within Bomber Command regarding the Pathfinders. Main Force crews blamed them for bad or incorrect target marking. Max Hastings notes that following the failiure of the Battle of Berlin 

"Their [Pathfinder] crews were little better qualified or more experienced than those of Main Force,and were almost as prone to the problem of creep back."

Bennett's response was to claim that 50% of Main Force crews "never troubled to use their bombsight."

Towards the end of the war the Pathfinders of 8 Group and those crews doing the same job in 5 Group (Cochrane's independent air force) had a plethora of sophisticated marking systems,but they could never beat the weather.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## parsifal (Jan 18, 2013)

Vincenzo said:


> Parsifal: Stirling first flight May '39, Mosquito first flight November '40. My cruise figure were from RAF data card of B XVI of 1.5.44 and max weak figure was 311 mph not 320 mpg (is 321 in backward), that of Lancaster were my estimation from Manchester data card. The range of B.XVI with 2,000 lbs at max weak is 1165 miles, so i don't think that Berlin it's in the range at max weak, calculating reserve and that the route in not a straight line (obviously w/o drop tank)




Your right about the first flight date, thanks, but fail to take into consideration that the contract to build the prototype was not signed until March 1940, andf there were two cancellations, one by Beaverbrook that took out nearly three months development time. moreover, more than a 1/3 of the design team were press ganged by the ministry into other work. 

Facts are, the Mosquito as a concept was at least 2 years older than the Stirling, and most of the concept design was completed before the Stirling was even on the drawing board.

You can rely on the data cards if you like (which are different to the ones I have), but that doesnt avoid the fact that the Mosquito had the lowest loss rate of any type. i dont care if you argue that Mosquitoes approached targets at walking pace, you cannot their fantqastically low loss rates away. And, the facts are, Mosquitoes were regulalrly hitting Belin with 4000 lb cookies, and 2000lb internal bombloads (in separate aircraft) and not suffering antwhere near the loss rates of their companions. 

I dont understand your range to payload figures. they appear grossly wrong to me. RAAF Mosquitoes were flying from Courallie to northern Borneo, with roughly twice that payload (in fuel and gear) and twice the range at least. The RAE test reults also conflict fundamentally with what you are saying. None of the more qualitifed experts in this place appear to believe you either. Maybe its time for you to re-think your claims


----------



## delcyros (Jan 18, 2013)

As a category of interest, I like stall speed in max gross weight configuration for strategic bombers. That, together with powerweight determines the take off run (some bombers frequently used up 6000ft runway length, limiting its potential airbase deployment), a lower stall speed allows for more easy approach and landing.
It's often found to be compromised for an edge in the high speed realm but some examples are really weird (the pe2 had jetlike stall speed).


----------



## parsifal (Jan 18, 2013)

I thought the aircraft notes might be of help, and attach them. From my reading of them, Vincenzo is almost certainly quoting IAS figures, which are a gross undersetimation of the true performance figures. When IAS is showing 236 @ 30K altitude for example, the aircraft is actually clocking 376mph (TAS).

The notes show there are two basic cruise configurations, an economical cruise and a max economical cruise. There is little difference between the max cruise fuel consumption rates and normal econmical cruise consumption rates. 
The aircraft is better off incidentally not using max economical cruise under most conditions. better range is normally achieved by flying high, with a 7lb boost and betwen 1900 rpm and 2650 rpm. Only where range is at the extreme limit does it become necessary to weaken the mixture right back and fly like a lame duck. 

When flying with a cruise speed of around 350mph (you guys need to read the attachment, I am only roughly summarising) the a/c will travel at 330-350mph a distance of 895miles (thats a radius incidentally). Thats for a later mark. Merlin 21 engined types have a greater range, but lower speed. Fuel consumption is around 106 gallons per hour,, and a mossie typically on those long haul missions carried a 540 gallon fule load. Mision specs usually required a 25% reserve to be kept in the tanks, so in a pinch, if you wanted to take the risk, you could go some distance further


----------



## davebender (Jan 18, 2013)

That only works if the enemy is located a few miles from your airfield. Normally you travel at the fastest possible economical cruise speed.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 18, 2013)

which according to the operational performance notes I posted, the max continuous cruising speed was between 285 and 378 TAS depending on the mission profile and loaded condition. These figures are for a mid range weight (20000lb) which is equivalent to a 540 gallon fuel loadout and a 2000lb bombload. More than enough to get you to berlin and back.

Moreover, the notes actually say that travelling at lower speed is less economical thanb travelling with 7lb boost and weak mixture @ 2650 rpm. at those settings you will travel at 30000 feet at more than 350 mph (TAS)


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 18, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Facts are, the Mosquito as a concept was at least 2 years older than the Stirling, and most of the concept design was completed before the Stirling was even on the drawing board.



From Wiki, for what it is worth: " In April 1938, performance estimates were produced of a twin Rolls-Royce Merlin powered DH.91, with the Bristol Hercules and Napier Sabre as alternatives."

"Shorts built a half scale version as the S.31 (also known internally as the M4 - the title on the tailfin), powered by four Pobjoy Niagara engines, which first flew on 19 September 1938, piloted by Shorts' Chief Test Pilot J. Lankester Parker."






1/2 scale model flies 5 months after De Havilland proposal is presented. When was work started on both full size and 1/2 scale aircraft? 

"On 4 October 1938, for example, De Havilland projected the performance of another design based on the D.H 91 Albatross, powered by two Merlin Xs, with a three-man crew and armed with six or eight forward firing guns, plus one or two manually operated guns and a tail turret."

About the same time (Oct 1938 ) De Havilland did propose an unarmed bomber. It is not until Sept/Oct of 1939 that work begins on the actual DH 98 design. 

I guess it depends on what you mean by _concept_ and how close the _concept_ was to the final design. 



parsifal said:


> And, the facts are, Mosquitoes were regulalrly hitting Belin with 4000 lb cookies, and 2000lb internal bombloads (in separate aircraft) and not suffering antwhere near the loss rates of their companions.



That is a fact but when did the first raid occur with the 4000lb bomb? 

Mosquito (DH 98 )was first planned with 1,280 hp (950 kW) Rolls-Royce RM3SM (experimental designation for what became known as the Merlin 21) engines,. Please note that at this time 100 octane fuel was the best that could be expected in the _near_ future. There was NO MEASUREMENT SYSTEM for ratings or performance over 100 octane at this time. Boost was going to be 12bs at best for while. The discovery that British 100 octane was actually 100/115-120 was still in the future let alone actual 100/130 fuel. 

There is abosoulty no doubt that the Mosquito was a _VERY_ amazing plane but too many people are using the performance of late 1943/44 versions to claim that bomber command made a serious mistake in ignoring it in 1940/41. It was a mistake but the first Mosquitos, even with 100/130 octane fuel are down on ceiling, speed, payload and range compared to the later ones. They could have been used to great effect in replacing many of the RAF twin engine bombers much sooner. 

How suitable they were for replacing 4 engine bombers is subject to argument, they may have been able to, they may not.


----------



## davebender (Jan 18, 2013)

That's fine for photo recon or a path finder aircraft but a WWII bomber cannot hit anything from 30,000 feet. What's the economical cruise speed @ 15,000 feet?


----------



## Glider (Jan 18, 2013)

stona said:


> I'm afraid that this is something of a myth too.


I think we are going to have to disagree on some of this



> The Pathfinder crews were drawn from regular squadrons and did not have any special qualifications.The various Groups were supposed to send their best crews but as Bennett noted 4 and 6 Groups loyally did so whilst the AOC's of other Groups were less scrupulous,sometimes simply sending men that they wanted rid of.


So two of the groups did what they were asked to do which in itself greatly increased the average quality.



> They did receive extra training,a two week course at Warboys, and were expected to complete a minimum of 45 rather than 30 missions in order to maximise the benefits of the extra investment.


I knew they did the extra training but thought that those who were not up to standard would have been sent back to the main force units.



> The vast majority of Pathfinder crews were men who had completed 10-15 missions with Main Force who then either volunteered for,or were drafted into the Pathfinders. They were not otherwise remarkable.


To survive 10-15 missions was remarkable in my book. Again it significantly increased the average quality of the pathfinder force. 



> One 44 Sqn crew was "volunteered" for the Pathfinders simply to get the pilot away from the base commanders WAAF driver!


 I would be willing to bet a penny to a pound that this was not the real reason but an explanation to cover up their decision. Its quite a common habit in people to cover up a major decision (of any kind).


> It was not unheard of for tight knit crews to seperate prior to joining the Pathfinder Force. Some men wanted nothing to do with an extended 45 mission tour.


 Can you blame some of them for deciding that they had pushed the odd to the limit. Absolutely understandable



> There was much controversy within Bomber Command regarding the Pathfinders. Main Force crews blamed them for bad or incorrect target marking. Max Hastings notes that following the failiure of the Battle of Berlin
> 
> "Their [Pathfinder] crews were little better qualified or more experienced than those of Main Force,and were almost as prone to the problem of creep back."


I wouldn't often disagree with someone like Max Hastings but we have seen that the average was higher in pathfinders, far from perfect but on average they were more qualified and experienced. 



> Bennett's response was to claim that 50% of Main Force crews "never troubled to use their bombsight."


 does anyone seriously believe that with the photo evidence available in the last 12-18 months of the war.



> Towards the end of the war the Pathfinders of 8 Group and those crews doing the same job in 5 Group (Cochrane's independent air force) had a plethora of sophisticated marking systems,but they could never beat the weather.


Clearly true but that isn't the point. Its also true that 617 squadron basically did their own pathfinding using a Mosquito and a Mustang. Not exactly the normal kit found in a Lanc squadron

cheers

David


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 18, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> 
> That is a fact but when did the first raid occur with the 4000lb bomb?



My question, too 

This aircraft data sheet gives, for May 1st 1944, the range of 1450 miles when cruising on 265 mph, or 1000 miles when cruising on 327 mph, with 4000 lbs. Up to that date only 26 aircraft were modified (= bulged bomb bay, some strengthening?) to carry 4000 lbs bomb. Merlin 23 power.

added: Wikipedia gives April of 1943 as the date when the squadron was formed, that would use the cookie-capable Mosquito.



> Mosquito (DH 98 )was first planned with 1,280 hp (950 kW) Rolls-Royce RM3SM (experimental designation for what became known as the Merlin 21) engines,. Please note that at this time 100 octane fuel was the best that could be expected in the _near_ future. There was NO MEASUREMENT SYSTEM for ratings or performance over 100 octane at this time. Boost was going to be 12bs at best for while. The discovery that British 100 octane was actually 100/115-120 was still in the future let alone actual 100/130 fuel.
> 
> There is abosoulty no doubt that the Mosquito was a _VERY_ amazing plane but too many people are using the performance of late 1943/44 versions to claim that bomber command made a serious mistake in ignoring it in 1940/41. It was a mistake but the first Mosquitos, even with 100/130 octane fuel are down on ceiling, speed, payload and range compared to the later ones. They could have been used to great effect in replacing many of the RAF twin engine bombers much sooner.



The range was 1620/1360 miles when cruising on 265/320 mph, for 2000 lbs carried by Mosquito, on Merlin 21s. The maximum weight of the plane was 21462 lbs, same as Merlin 23 powered cookie-capable version. Ie. all going on with single stage Merlins - a 1941 technology.
here



> How suitable they were for replacing 4 engine bombers is subject to argument, they may have been able to, they may not.



Not sure they would be able, to bad there was no 4-engined Mossie's stablemates.

Looking at Williams' site, the Mossie Mk.XX (Merlin 32) and XVI ( Merlin 72,73) were able to haul a cookie and wing bombs, but the earliest date is same as above, May 1st 1944.


----------



## davebender (Jan 18, 2013)

> range was 1620/1360 miles when cruising on 265/320 mph, for 2000 lbs carried by Mosquito, on Merlin 21s


More or less similiar to Me-410A. Except the German aircraft could dive bomb (50 degree angle), had superior crew protection and a pair of remote control machineguns to provide some defense against rear air attacks. IMO these type aircraft are useful for long range tactical airstrikes but lack the range / payload for attacking industrial targets. 

Ju-288 or a similar type Allied aircraft would be an entirely different matter. Speed similiar to Mosquito and Me-410A but range / payload is much greater.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 18, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> That is a fact but when did the first raid occur with the 4000lb bomb?


From back on page 4:



Aozora said:


> First Mosquito raid carrying 4,000 lb bombs was against Dusseldorf on 23/24 February 1944, 627 Sqn. First attack on Berlin 13-14 April 1944 by eight Mosquito XVIs of 692 Sqn., each also equipped with 2 x 50 gal drop tanks. By the end of April 692 Sqn had flown 200 sorties, dropped nearly 200 4,000 pounders with no losses. Between 15 July to 15 August '44 Mosquitos dropped 336 4,000 pounders on Berlin. (Sharp and Bowyer pages 308-312).



de Havilland put forward plans for enlarged, 3 seat Mosquitoes, the the D.H 99/101 and D.H 102 but both were felt to be too compromised to be worthwhile:









(Buttler: British Secret Projects Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950 85-86)


----------



## wuzak (Jan 18, 2013)

davebender said:


> More or less similiar to Me-410A.



Of that I am not convinced.

The Me 410 with 2 x 1750hp engines had performance similar to earlier Mosquitoes with 2 x 1250hp engine.





davebender said:


> Except the German aircraft could dive bomb (50 degree angle)



I didn't think dive bombing was all that successful/survivable when it is done without local air superiority. Something that could not be had over Germany (for teh Allies) for most of 1943/44.




davebender said:


> had superior crew protection



In what way? More armour?




davebender said:


> and a pair of remote control machineguns to provide some defense against rear air attacks.



And how effective were those pop-guns? Did their value outweigh their added complexity and the loss of performance (weight, drag)?




davebender said:


> IMO these type aircraft are useful for long range tactical airstrikes but lack the range / payload for attacking industrial targets.



I suppose it depends on how many bombs are required to destroy/damage targets.

Take the first Schweinfurt mission. There was significant damage to the ball bearing factories - not enough to close production completely, but enough to reduce capacity and delay production. This damage was achieved with 80 hits with 1000lb bombs. Over 600 such bombs were dropped to achieve this - so 13%, or less hit the targets.

Now, 80 1000lb bombs = 40 Mosquitoes (they could carry 2 x 1000lb GP or MC bombs). At low level you could say they would achieve 50% accuracy. So now we need 80 Mosquitoes. If we assume 50% losses that would mean we require 160 Mosquitoes. To do the same damage as 230 B-17s.

From early 1944 Mosquitoes could carry 4000lb bombs - either the 4000lb HC "cookie" or the 4000lb MC bomb. These were even better for industrial targets.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 18, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> That is a fact but when did the first raid occur with the 4000lb bomb?



Another question is when could it have occurred?

Ian Thirsk, _de Havilland Mosquito, An Illustrated History_, has a picture of Mosquito DZ637, a B.IV series ii. It was sent to Vickers on 24 June 1943 for conversion to carry the 4000lb bomb. This was completed by 2 September 1943, after which the aircraft entered storage. Then in February 1944 it was assigned to 627 Squadron, before being transferred to 692 Squadron some 2 weeks later. 

So, there was at least one conversion, not for testing, completed 5 months before the first 4000lb bombs were dropped by Mosquitoes.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 18, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> There is abosoulty no doubt that the Mosquito was a _VERY_ amazing plane but too many people are using the performance of late 1943/44 versions to claim that bomber command made a serious mistake in ignoring it in 1940/41. It was a mistake but the first Mosquitos, even with 100/130 octane fuel are down on ceiling, speed, payload and range compared to the later ones. They could have been used to great effect in replacing many of the RAF twin engine bombers much sooner.



The performance of B.IVs in daylight operations from late 1942 to early 1943 should have been enough to convince the powers-that-be that the Mosquito was a very valuable and capable bomber.

As in the example above, some Mosquitoes went into storage after completion.

DZ599 sent to Vickers for conversion to carry the 4000lb bomb 28 May 1943. After completion it went into storage, and didn't go to a squadron until February 1944, and not on operations until April 1944.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 18, 2013)

> From Wiki, for what it is worth: " In April 1938, performance estimates were produced of a twin Rolls-Royce Merlin powered DH.91, with the Bristol Hercules and Napier Sabre as alternatives."
> 
> "Shorts built a half scale version as the S.31 (also known internally as the M4 - the title on the tailfin), powered by four Pobjoy Niagara engines, which first flew on 19 September 1938, piloted by Shorts' Chief Test Pilot J. Lankester Parker."
> 
> ...



This has nothing to do with the technology. Mostly, it relates to the timing that specifications are issued. 

On 8 September 1936, the British Air Ministry issued Specification P.13/36, which called for a twin-engined medium bomber capable of carrying a bomb load of 3,000 pounds (1,400 kg) for 3,000 miles (4,800 km) with a maximum speed of 275 miles per hour (443 km/h) at 15,000 feet (4,600 m); a maximum bomb load of 8,000 pounds (3,600 kg) which could be carried over shorter ranges was also specified. Major aviation firms entered heavy designs with new high-powered engines and multiple defensive turrets, leading to the production of the Avro Manchester and Handley Page Halifax.

In May 1937, as a comparison to P.13/36, George Volkert, who was the chief designer of Handley Page, put forward to the Air Ministry the concept of a fast unarmed bomber. In his 20-page document, Volkert laid out plans for an aerodynamically clean medium bomber that would carry 3,000 pounds (1,400 kg) of bombs at a cruising speed of 300 miles per hour (480 km/h). There was some support for the idea in the RAF and Air Ministry, but they were muzzled ; for example a Captain Liptrot, who was then Research Director Aircraft 3 , appraised Volkert's design, calculating that its top speed would exceed that of the brand new Supermarine Spitfire. There were, however, counter-arguments that, although such a design had merit, it would not necessarily maintain a speed advantage over enemy fighters for long. The Ministry was also considering the use of non-strategic materials for aircraft production, which, in 1938, led to specification B.9/38 and the development of the Albemarle medium bomber, which was largely constructed from spruce and plywood attached to a steel-tube frame. Thus it can be seen that the idea of a small, fast bomber, possibly made out of non-strategic materials, was gaining support but the specifications for its development were at least two years later than those relating to the heavy bombers that Britiain would eventually use in the war. The Mossie even from before its inception was playing catchup, but this had nothing to do with the technology. De Havilland, for example, was years ahead of everyone else in laminar design, dating back to at least his 1931 comet design, The problem was not the technology, it was convincing the decision makers that it could be done. 




> That is a fact but when did the first raid occur with the 4000lb bomb?



I believe it was May 1944. 




> Mosquito (DH 98 )was first planned with 1,280 hp (950 kW) Rolls-Royce RM3SM (experimental designation for what became known as the Merlin 21) engines,. Please note that at this time 100 octane fuel was the best that could be expected in the _near_ future. There was NO MEASUREMENT SYSTEM for ratings or performance over 100 octane at this time. Boost was going to be 12bs at best for while. The discovery that British 100 octane was actually 100/115-120 was still in the future let alone actual 100/130 fuel.



If the mosquito had begun development in say 1938, with squadron delivery in 1939, I dont think there is any argument that these hypothetical Mosquitoes would have been a lot less of a performer compared to the later real world marks. The first real world Mosquitoes with merlin 21s had a top speed of 365 mph, which was still fast enough to virtually gurantee immunity from intercetion. This was because even the earlier marks still had an impressive sustained max cruise speed, and a respecable (ie superior to any other bomber) sustained cruise speed.

If Mosquitoes began entering service in 1939, they may have had a max speed of around 340 mph Im just guessing that number, but if Im even close , thats still more than enough to walk away from any fighter then in existence. 

The evolution off the Mosquito design is interesting. i note that this 9and some of the preceding text is in wiki, however wiki has in fact pinched its narrative from a good source, the Point Cook museum. 

"After further consideration, in a follow-up letter sent to Freeman on 27 July, de Havilland stated that the P.13/36 specification could not be met by a twin Merlin powered aircraft and that either the top speed or load carrying capacity would be compromised, depending on which was paramount. For example, a larger, slower, turret armed aircraft would have a range of 1,500 miles (2,400 km) carrying a 4,000 lb (1,800 kg) bomb load, with a maximum speed of 260 miles per hour (420 km/h) at 19,000 feet (5,800 m), and a cruising speed of 230 miles per hour (370 km/h) at 18,000 feet (5,500 m). De Havilland believed that such a concept was too much of a compromise, and that getting rid of some surplus equipment would lead to a better design. On 4 October 1938, for example, de Havilland projected the performance of another design based on the D.H 91 Albatross, powered by two Merlin Xs, with a three-man crew and armed with six or eight forward firing guns, plus one or two manually operated guns and a tail turret. Based on a total loaded weight of 19,000 pounds (8,600 kg) it would have a top speed of 300 miles per hour (480 km/h) and cruising speed of 268 miles per hour (431 km/h) at 22,500 feet (6,900 m).

Still believing that this performance could be improved upon, and after examining more concepts based on the Albatross and the new all-metal DH.95 Flamingo, de Havilland settled on designing a completely new aircraft that would be aerodynamically clean, of wooden construction and powered by the Merlin, which offered promise of substantial future development. The new design would be faster than all current or foreseeable enemy fighter aircraft, and could dispense with a defensive armament, which would only slow it down and make interception or losses to anti-aircraft guns more likely. Instead, high speed and good manoeuvrability would make it easier for the design to evade both fighters and ground fire. 

Also, the lack of turrets meant that production would be simplified and production time reduced, with a delivery rate far in advance of any competing designs. Without armament, the crew could be reduced to a pilot and a navigator. This was in contrast to contemporary RAF design philosophy, which required well-armed heavy bombers and was much more akin to the German schnellbomber concept" (. However, it also damned the acceptance of the Mosquito to a very rough reception, and a long aceptance perios. it was simply too radical and too much of a departure to be easily accepted for the war winner that it could be). 

"During a meeting held in early October 1938 between Geoffrey de Havilland, Charles C Walker (de Havilland's chief engineer) and Air Ministry officials, the latter showed little interest in de Havilland's concept and, instead, asked de Havilland to build wings for other bombers as a sub-contractor.

By September 1939 de Havilland had produced preliminary estimates for both single- and twin-engined variations of light-bomber designs using different engines, while speculating on the effects of defensive armament on their designs. On 20 September, in another letter to Wilfred Freeman, Geoffrey de Havilland wrote "...we believe that we could produce a twin-engine bomber which would have a performance so outstanding that little defensive equipment would be needed." (Those pre-design estimates proved to be prophetically accurate. DeHavilland estimated their design could achieve a top speed of around 360mph, the actual dewsign was found to be 367mph). "By 4 October work had progressed to a twin engine light bomber with a wingspan of 51 ft 3 in (15.62 m), and powered by either Merlin or Griffon engines, with the Merlin being favoured because of its immediate availability."


----------



## parsifal (Jan 18, 2013)

> There is abosoulty no doubt that the Mosquito was a _VERY_ amazing plane but too many people are using the performance of late 1943/44 versions to claim that bomber command made a serious mistake in ignoring it in 1940/41. It was a mistake but the first Mosquitos, even with 100/130 octane fuel are down on ceiling, speed, payload and range compared to the later ones. They could have been used to great effect in replacing many of the RAF twin engine bombers much sooner.




I agree, but I am not trying to promote the early versions as having performance of the 1943-4 types. The issue with Vincenzo was about the FB XVI and the FB40. FB XVI had Merlin 61s and FB40s had Merlin XXX (locally produced Packard Merlins). The early versions could still fly to Berlin, and could drop between 1500 lbs to 2000 lbs. They were still un-interceptabl;e by the LW. 



> How suitable they were for replacing 4 engine bombers is subject to argument, they may have been able to, they may not.



The fast light bomber proponents were having exactlly the same arguments in 1936-8. The Light strike Force, when it was finally formed undetook some outstanding precision strikes from 1944. City busting was probably beyond their capability, but then, city busting as a techniques was forced on the RAF out of necessity. If equipped with a bomber like the Mosquito, they may not have needed to rely on brute force


----------



## parsifal (Jan 18, 2013)

davebender said:


> That's fine for photo recon or a path finder aircraft but a WWII bomber cannot hit anything from 30,000 feet. What's the economical cruise speed @ 15,000 feet?



Its in the operational specs I posted, but there is not a great deal of difference. But why would they do that (approach at 15K) if that is less economical?. Why wouldnt they have a Hi-lo-hi mission profile, if that is the most efficient fuel wise?


----------



## wuzak (Jan 18, 2013)

parsifal said:


> The issue with Vincenzo was about the FB XVI and the FB40. FB XVI had Merlin 61s and FB40s had Merlin XXX (locally produced Packard Merlins).



No such thing as the FB.XVI. Do you mean FB.VI? That is the fighter bomber version, which had half its bomb bay taken over by the cannon. That meant a maximum bomb load of 2000lb - 2 x 500lb in the rear of the bomb bay plus 2 x 500lb bombs under the wings. The 1500lb bomb load mentioned would be 2 x 500lb in the bomb bay plus 2 x 250lb under the wings. The FB.40 was the Australian built FB.VI, using Packard Merlins. The FB.26 was the Canadian built version.

The FBs were not at all suitable for strategic bombing, as they had even more limited loads than the bomber versions. Plus, they had lower performance, owing to the flat fighter type windscreen and drag from the gun installations.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 18, 2013)

I think we are straying off topic by a considerable margin; the idea that the Mossie could have replaced the RAF's heavy bombers was a feasible one in principle, but not in practise; Bomber Command heads had adopted their area bombing policy and were sticking to it, regardless of what came along and they stuck to doing so until the very end. 

Since this thread is about WW2 strategic bomber characteristics I re-iterate what I stated in a previous post; accuracy was they key here, not necessarily size of payload - depending on the role, of course. A Mossie can't carry a Tall Boy. Nevertheless, the economics are obvious, using fast high speed bombers in lieu of a four engined heavies makes more sense if the job can be done with them, which the Mosquito demonstrated that it could.

As for heavier bombers dropping more bombs, this depends solely on the target itself and this is not a sole consideration, you still need to think about getting to and from the target area with minimum wastage and other factors.


----------



## davebender (Jan 18, 2013)

I doubt it. That's the sort of accuracy one could expect using dive bombers to attack a factory.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 18, 2013)

davebender said:


> I doubt it. That's the sort of accuracy one could expect using dive bombers to attack a factory.




Mosquitoes achieved superior levels of accuracy, as demonstrated by their attack on the SS Gest6apo Headquaters. not only did they have to hit just one building.....they had to hit one side of that building.

Stories of how accurate the Mosquito were are legion.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 18, 2013)

davebender said:


> I doubt it. That's the sort of accuracy one could expect using dive bombers to attack a factory.



Doubt all you want.

When I say low level, I mean tree-top height.

Usually when they missed from that altitude it was because they mistook the target.


----------



## davebender (Jan 18, 2013)

Stories can say anything the story teller wants them to say. I want historical bombing accuracy tests.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 18, 2013)

davebender said:


> Stories can say anything the story teller wants them to say. I want historical bombing accuracy tests.



Posted by Jabberwocky on another forum:



> Mosquito bombing at low level was considered very accurate for the time. The CEP for target market level bombing at low altitude was on the order of 120-150 meters, at least within Oboe range (around 270 miles). The most common figure that I've found is 50% of bombs within 130 meters.
> 
> Mosquito shallow dive bombing was also considered very accurate, both by fighter bombers and straight bomber aircraft. Standard fighter-bomber technique, developed in late 1942, was to go in at 4-5000 ft, enter a shallow dive and release at 2000-1500 ft, using 11-second delay fuses. Bombers would drop from higher up, usually about 4000-5000 ft.
> 
> ...


----------



## parsifal (Jan 19, 2013)

Thanks for the correection about FBXVI. I should be more careful. It was the Mark XVI something....if not FBXVI, it was the BXVI.


I really should not get into the deep end of the pool sometimes


----------



## parsifal (Jan 19, 2013)

I think the main point of dispute here is whether the Mosquito, in its historical form could undertake or replace the role occupied by the traditional heavy bombers. I would say not. It was too light to undertake the task of "area bombing". Its another question whether, given its capabilities and suvivability it needed to have such muscle. If it is considered that it (the Mosquito) needed to be "heavy" to complete all the functions of a strategic bomber, then I wonder if a four engine version of the same basic concept was ever considered or investigated?


----------



## stona (Jan 19, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Mosquitoes achieved superior levels of accuracy, as demonstrated by their attack on the SS Gest6apo Headquaters. not only did they have to hit just one building.....they had to hit one side of that building.



I presume you mean Operation Carthage,the attack on the Gestapo headquarters in the "Shellhus" in Copenhagen.
That was a specialist low level raid _carried out in daylight._ Try attacking the heavily defended targets of the Ruhr like that and you wouldn't last five minutes. This is one of the raids I referred to earlier as having mixed results,particularly for the 86 school children killed at the school mistaken for the target after one of the attackers crashed onto a garage close to it.

Look at the logistics too. 18 Mosquitos (plus two filming) to attack one building,plus a large fighter escort. 4 of the 20 Mosquitos were lost. That's a massive 20% of the attacking force. Completely unsustainable in a long term strategic campaign. 1 escorting Mustang was also lost.

Despite toting 44 bombs all the way to Copenhagen only 8 actually hit the target building. 6 bombs hit the Western wing,instantly killing 6 of the 9 prisoners held there. A 7th died jumping from a top floor window.2 bombs hit the East wing in which no prisoners were held.14 of the 18 surviving prisoners were in the South wing of the Shellhus which was not hit by any bombs.

Apart from the 86 school children and 16 adults killed at the school about another 100 people,including 50 Germans,lost their lives.

Once again the reality does not exactly match the post war myth.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Jan 19, 2013)

This aircraft has the range / payload to be considered a strategic bomber by WWII standards and unlike level bombers it has the accuracy to hit factory size targets. Why couldn't a similiar aircraft be designed 5 years earlier and powered by Jumo 222 or R2800 engine?

Off-the-Shelf Killer Bees: making do with what you got?


----------



## stona (Jan 19, 2013)

davebender said:


> This aircraft has the range / payload to be considered a strategic bomber by WWII standards and unlike level bombers it has the accuracy to hit factory size targets. Why couldn't a similiar aircraft be designed 5 years earlier and powered by Jumo 222 or R2800 engine?



It couldn't be designed five years earlier because the design incorporates lessons learnt during those five years. You might as well ask why couldn't an operational jet have been designed five years earlier. Whittle's first engine ran in 1937,should be up and running by 1940?

Given technology available in 1943-5 how exactly was this aircraft,if available,going to hit factory sized targets. 

I'd prefer a Mosquito,simply because I don't fancy cruising at less than 200mph through skies contested by the Luftwaffe nightfighters and defended by the highest concentrations of anti aircraft artillery the world had ever seen.
Or are you considering doing this in daylight? At least you'd have a better chance of identifying your target,assuming that you managed to survive long enough to reach it.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Jan 19, 2013)

> Given technology available in 1943-5 how exactly was this aircraft,if available,going to hit factory sized targets.


Dive bombers could hit factory size targets during 1939. Why wouldn't A1D be just as accurate using a WWII era dive bombing sight?


----------



## stona (Jan 19, 2013)

We're talking about a strategic bombing campaign.
Time and time again both here and in other places the vulnerability of dive bombers operating with anything other than local air superiority,which for deep penetration missions of the type needed for a campaign against Germany means total air superiority,has been debated. 
It might theoretically have been possible after mid 1944,say for the last nine months of the European conflict,had either of the Western Allies had the slightest interest in dive bombers,even in a tactical sense.Of course without the preceding Anglo-American campaigns it might not have been possible even then (a different topic). 
Dive bombing is irrelevant in the context of a strategic bombing campaign which started many years earlier.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## parsifal (Jan 19, 2013)

stona said:


> I presume you mean Operation Carthage,the attack on the Gestapo headquarters in the "Shellhus" in Copenhagen.
> That was a specialist low level raid _carried out in daylight._ Try attacking the heavily defended targets of the Ruhr like that and you wouldn't last five minutes. This is one of the raids I referred to earlier as having mixed results,particularly for the 86 school children killed at the school mistaken for the target after one of the attackers crashed onto a garage close to it.
> 
> Look at the logistics too. 18 Mosquitos (plus two filming) to attack one building,plus a large fighter escort. 4 of the 20 Mosquitos were lost. That's a massive 20% of the attacking force. Completely unsustainable in a long term strategic campaign. 1 escorting Mustang was also lost.
> ...



Actually that wasnt the raids I was thinking of, though I think you omitted to point out that Gestapo records were destroyed, which was the primary target of that raid, and probably saved many hundreds of lives. The deaths of the innocent danish civilians is a tragedy, but by that logic, the Allies should not have attacked into France, since that attack also caused the tragic deaths of many frenchmen. Of course, in the end, it saved many more from a murderous, rutless regime, but people seem to forget that in their eagerness to attack the allies due to unavoidable collateral damage. I would suggest you get a grip, this was total war, and the Germans were using the whole of Europe as a human shield. They were murdering innocent people by the thousand, but that seems to be forgotten whenever this morality claptrap regarding RAF operations is raised.

Plus, despite the collateral damage, the raid still can be shown as an excellent example of just how accurate Mosquitoes could be. What chance would the school, the building, the prisoners, indeed, the whole city have had, if the raid had been the subject of a raid by a sizable force of four engined bombers

Mostly i was thinking of the attacks undertaken by Nos 138 and 140 wings, where the actual deeds certainly do live up to the post war "myth". 

Both wings were involved in the campaign against the V-1 launch sites in the Pas de Calais early in 1944. The Mosquito was the ideal aircraft to attack these small targets, needed only a quarter of the sortie rates required by any other aircraft to destroy each site. This is borne out by the previous mounts used by these wings in these attacks Mitchells, Venturas, Bostons and Wellingtons (I think) by the same outfits, achieved nowhere near the accuracy that was achieved by the same unts after conversion. Mosquitoes were four times more accurate to be precise 

These squadrons were involved in two of the most famous of all Mosquito raids, pinpoint attacks on Amiens Prison and on the Gestapo records in The Hague. Amiens Prison (which was the one I was thinking of) contained over 700 French prisoners, many from the resistance. When it was discovered that the Germans were planning to execute these people enmasse, Nos. 487 and 464 Squadrons were sent to knock down the walls of the prison, and give the prisoners a chance to escape. This required some of the most precise bombing ever attempted, but the Mosquito crews were up to the task. On 18 February 1944 the walls of the prison were duly destroyed, and 255 prisoners escaped. Only one Mosquito was lost. I calculate that to be a loss rate of about 0.5%....to paraphrase your earlier opinion....."Completely sustainable in a long term strategic campaign".

The second raid hit the Kunstzaal Kleizkamp Art Gallery in The Hague. This building was being used by the Gestapo to store the Dutch Central Population Registry. Destruction of these records would be a great help to the Dutch resistance. Accordingly, on 11 April 1944 No 613 Squadron was sent to attack the Gallery. Once again, the required building was hit, and most of the records destroyed. There were no recorded aircraft losses



> That was a specialist low level raid _carried out in daylight._ Try attacking the heavily defended targets of the Ruhr like that and you wouldn't last five minutes. This is one of the raids I referred to earlier as having mixed results,particularly for the 86 school children killed at the school mistaken for the target after one of the attackers crashed onto a garage close to it.



Are you claiming the Mosquito did not undertake raids into Germany by Daylight????/ If so, you have got to be kidding...... BC had in fact been undertaking exactly that since 1941. Why would the Mosquito be any less likely than any other type to undertake such raids. Further, Mosquitoes were tasked to undertake daylight missions over Germany, in daylight against heavily defended targets. Are you saying they didnt. sheesh....For example, the two wings mentioned above were involved in the daylight component of operation Clarion, which involved many daylight attacks against heavily defended high value targets like railway sidings and the like with the characteristic low losses for the type. 

Some examples

The first bomber squadrons to receive the Mosquito B IV used it for several low-level daylight raids throughout the summer of 1942. On 29 August 1942, Mk IVS of 105 Squadron RAF undertook a bombing mission against Pont-à-Vendin. They were attacked by Focke-Wulf Fw 190s. The Fw 190s attacked head-on before turning to attack from the stern. The Mosquitos used their speed to outpace the 190s. On 19 September, Mosquitos attacked Berlin for the first time in daylight. Once again, when a Mosquito piloted by D.A.G George Parry was attacked by Messerschmitt Bf 109s, he was able to outrun them. One Mosquito failed to return. One of the first missions was the Oslo raid on 25 September 1942, carried out by four aircraft of No. 105 Squadron RAF, after which the Mosquito was publicly revealed for the first time.

So much for the type not being able to penetrate and successfully attack targets within Germany in Daylight. You have got to be kidding. 

Two notable daylight missions were carried out on 30 January 1943, when Mosquitoes carried out two attacks on Berlin timed to disrupt speeches being delivered by Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring and Joseph Goebbels. It is well to note that in the upcoming months the defences of Berlin very nearly defeated BC again. 

The first attack, in the morning, comprised three Mosquito B Mk. IVs from 105 Squadron, which carried out a low-level attack on the main Berlin broadcasting station, at 11:00, when Göring was due to address a parade commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Nazis' being voted into power. It was a nuisance raid, carried out for proaganda purposes, but Göring off the air for more than an hour, and it demonstrates in spades that Mosquitoes could, and did attack heavily defended targets, wityh far less chance of loss than their larger cousins. 

Mosquitoes from 139 Squadron went to Berlin in the afternoon of the same day to attempt to interrupt a speech by Goebbels, and once again bombed at the exact time. However, Berlin's anti-aircraft defences were on alert and a Mosquito flown by Squadron Leader D.F. Darling was shot down, both Darling and his navigator being killed.

Göring, however, was not amused: If you are seriously claimimg the Mosquito was not up to undertaking daylight penetrations, I expect neither will you.


----------



## davebender (Jan 19, 2013)

I agree. 

Objective is to destroy enemy industrial infrastructure. Which requires hitting factory size objects with bombs of 500 to 2,000 lbs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 19, 2013)

davebender said:


> Dive bombers could hit factory size targets during 1939. Why wouldn't A1D be just as accurate using a WWII era dive bombing sight?



It might very well be just as accurate, given an undefended target in clear weather.

If you have low clouds or ground fog the high altitude bombers are bombing blind and so is the dive bomber. The Dive bomber has the added problem of not knowing where the ground is and when to pull out. (In actuality when faced with an obscured target the dive bomber has three choices, 1, return home with the bombs, 2, find alternative target, 3 jettison bombs into the murk.)

Smoke Generators are just as effective (if not more so) against dive bombers than level bombers. Level bomber formation _MAY_ be able to key off a visible feature out side the smoke screen and drop a pattern of bombs in the _area_ of the target. 
Dive bombers usually don't practice group drops and don't have usually have the tonnage of bombs to make "blind" bombing practical. 

Barrage balloons around strategic can force the dive bombers to release from much higher altitudes, greatly reducing accuracy. The Germans fitted cable cutters to a number of their twin engine bombers to enable low level attacks. 

Camouflage offers some protection against dive bombers. 

Dive bombing becomes near suicidal against a good AA gun defense. Works great against poor AA defenses. It puts the plane on a steady, almost constant speed course for a number of seconds in full view of practically every AA gun within range. The Dive bomber release point is within the effective range of practically anything more effective than a Lewis gun. And even the Lewis may get lucky. 


Now lets throw in a few defending fighters


----------



## Glider (Jan 19, 2013)

davebender said:


> This aircraft has the range / payload to be considered a strategic bomber by WWII standards and unlike level bombers it has the accuracy to hit factory size targets. Why couldn't a similiar aircraft be designed 5 years earlier and powered by Jumo 222 or R2800 engine?
> 
> Off-the-Shelf Killer Bees: making do with what you got?
> View attachment 222095



It would be a sitting duck for fighters by day, didn't cruise any faster than a Lanc/Halifax by night and I doubt if it had the range / payload of the RAF heavies when bombed up with all those external stores. Plus of course it was five years too late.

Apart from that. it would have been a huge success.

Now as a GA, no contest


----------



## davebender (Jan 19, 2013)

A price that must be paid if you want to hit the target. However a single squadron would be adequate for attacking a factory. So even if you lose the entire squadron it's cheaper then losing 40 or 50 heavy bombers on a typical RAF Bomber Command mission that will probably miss the factory.


----------



## stona (Jan 19, 2013)

None of the above leads up to anything like a strategic bombing campaign. I don't see your point. Undertaking specialist low level penetrations with small forces and,by the overall standards of the Mosquito,high losses,is hardly going to cause significant damage to your enemies means of production.

You originally said an attack on SS Gestapo headquarters. The only attacks on a Gestapo headquarters were those at The Hague,Aarhus,I think Oslo and Operation Carthage in Copenhagen. These attacks were in support of or at the direct request of the various resistance movements. The Copenhagen raid was launched after repeated requests and pleading from the Danish resistance movement who were on the point of collapse. I do not count the dead prisoners as collateral because the Danish resistance was itself happy to see them killed.

Amiens prison was not a Gestapo HQ.You omitted to mention the 102 prisoners killed an 74 wounded who might not have regarded the attack as a sparkling success. Only 79 escapees were political or resistance prisoners and the majority were soon recaptured. The rest were simply criminals.
Don't get me going on the French Resistance factions,S.O.E. and why this raid actually took place at all. I'm happy to concentrate on the magnificent effort of the RAF crews involved.
Incidentally the objective was not just to destroy the walls but to bomb the prison. I have never seen any evidence for the purported mass executions. Bombing the prison would have helped with that!






The records were the target at Aarhus,which was a more successful effort and had the added bonus of killing SS Sturmbannführer Kriminalrat Eugen Schwitzgebel, head of the Aussendienststelle der Sipo and SD in Aarhus.

You'll notice that none of these operations required flying hundreds of miles across German air space, some did. The 105/139 Sqn raids are obviously two such.There were other raids at more strategic targets. A really deep penetration raid to attack the Schott glass works and Zeiss optical works at Jena, near Leipzig (105 and 139 again though with less success).The raid on the diesel engine factory near Copenhagen which I can't find my reference for,but which was successful. There was an attack on the Molybdenum mines at Knaben and many more.These are all pin pricks and there were losses.

These were skillfully executed raids,carried out by some very brave men but what effect did these raids have on Germany's capacity to wage war?

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Jan 19, 2013)

How many bombers were involved? Bomb load per aircraft? What was typical bombing accuracy at typical attack altitude?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 19, 2013)

*However a single squadron would be adequate for attacking a factory*

Pure balderdash. A single squadron of what kind of dive bombers using what kind of bombs? Even 500lb bombs were really too light for wrecking a factory. One or two bombs per plane? 

what kind of factory? 

Dive bombing is not "magic", it takes well trained crews/pilots to achieve those high accuracy results. Low time pilots/crews are not going to be anywhere near as effective. 

For your consideration, from Wiki. 

"In Schweinfurt the destruction was less severe but still extensive. The two largest factories, Kugelfischer Company and Vereinigte Kugellager Fabrik I, suffered 80 direct hits.[23] 35,000 m² (380,000 square feet) of buildings in the five factories were destroyed, and more than 100,000 m² (1,000,000 square feet) suffered fire damage.[24] All the factories except Kugelfischer had extensive fire damage to machinery when incendiaries ignited the machine oil used in the manufacturing process."

"Albert Speer reported an immediate 34 per cent loss of production" 

A squadron of divebombers????


----------



## davebender (Jan 19, 2013)

> Kugelfischer Company and Vereinigte Kugellager Fabrik I, suffered 80 direct hits


What size bombs?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 19, 2013)

Some planes carried 5 1000lb bombs, some carried 16 X 250lb incendiaries. That is from just two different squadrons.


----------



## davebender (Jan 19, 2013)

Me-410A and A1D would probably carry 4 x 250kg / 500lb bombs plus a bunch of fuel. 

With 100% accuracy you could accomplish similiar damage with 20 aircraft. 20% dive bomber accuracy is probably more likely, including losses and aborts due to enemy defenses. So you need 100 large dive bombers to accomplish similiar damage.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 19, 2013)

Parsifal the cruise speed in the data card are in TAS not in IAS. However both planes cruise speed are from a data card so this is not a trouble in comparation.
A bomber plane with development start in 38 never see squadron service in 39... The stirling development started early of that of mosquito.


----------



## stona (Jan 19, 2013)

davebender said:


> Me-410A and A1D would probably carry 4 x 250kg / 500lb bombs plus a bunch of fuel.
> 
> With 100% accuracy you could accomplish similiar damage with 20 aircraft. 20% dive bomber accuracy is probably more likely, including losses and aborts due to enemy defenses. So you need 100 large dive bombers to accomplish similiar damage.



Are you planning to carry out this raid in daylight? The RAF might have something to say about that.
I don't believe that dive bombing was even possible by night. I don't mean the sort of gentle "swoop" at altitude which some He 177s used but "proper" dive bombing at 70 degrees or more. 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## davebender (Jan 19, 2013)

Some Ju-87s bombed at night. I believe they employed a more shallow angle of attack. With a daytime CEP of 30 meters you can afford some loss of accuracy at night and still hit a factory size target.


----------



## stona (Jan 19, 2013)

The average factory building was taken as 200' by 200',at least that figure seems to apply to a lot of calculations. Obviously some were very much larger. I doubt you'd hit that at night,assuming of course that you found it in the first place. 
Would you not be better off level bombing with radio guidance? At least you'd theoretically be at the correct point in space when you released your bombs.The people of Coventry thought that it worked.
When Bomber Command finally went to Schweinfurt in February 1944,with years of experience bombing at night,some Pathfinders marked and some of the Main Force bombed Nuremberg. They were nearly 60 miles off target.
It is impossible to overestimate,even at this late stage of the war,just how difficult it was to find a target the size of a city,let alone a factory building,at night.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## CobberKane (Jan 19, 2013)

I think if you are going to compare the merits of fast daylight bomber v heavy daylight bombers the old mossie v fortress argument is probably a good place to start.
The mossie can deliver at least the same payload the same distance (pause here for howls of protest). Please bear in mind that by this I mean that x million dollars worth of Mosquitos can deliver the same bomb load as x million dollars worth of B-17s - you get a lot more mossies for the buck.
The Mosquitos should suffer fewer losses, but I'm not so sure. Certainly they should spend less time over enemy airspace and be much harder to intercept, but if you are going to put e ought Mosquitos into the air to do the same job as a formation of fortresses the would also be easier to detect than the relatively small flights that were actually used
I don't see how the mosquito could have accomplished one of the Fortresses greatest contributions - dragging the LW into the air where escorting fighter could knock them down. The whole point of the mossie was to avoid interception.
I think at the end of the day both the fast unarmed bomber and the heavy strategic bomber were vital. Ther was some overlap in use, but ultimately each could also do things the other couldn't


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 19, 2013)

*HOOOOWWWWWLL*



CobberKane said:


> The mossie can deliver at least the same payload the same distance (pause here for howls of protest). Please bear in mind that by this I mean that x million dollars worth of Mosquitos can deliver the same bomb load as x million dollars worth of B-17s - you get a lot more mossies for the buck.



Part of the problem is timing. While the Mossie _eventually_ got to the point that it could haul an equal payload an equal distance, the question is _when_ did that occur?

"The maximum bombload of the first B-17Fs was 9600 pounds, but the range over which such loads could be carried was quite short. On typical missions the load was 4000-5000 pounds over operating ranges of 1400 miles. Beyond these distances, the bombload fell off quite rapidly"

First B-17F came off the line May 30th 1942. 
B-17Es had been being produced since Sept 5th 1941, last of 512 produced on May 28th 1942. Normal range 2000 miles with 4000 pounds of bombs. Maximum bomb load (for the E) was 26 100-pound bombs, or 16 300-pound bombs, or 12 500-pound bombs, or 8 1000-pound bombs, or 4 2000-pound bombs. The 9600lb bomb load was six 1600lb AP bombs which was a rather specialized load. 
The US had arranged for mass production of the B-17 on a large scale in 1941. 
"the Army Air Forces encouraged the organization of a manufacturing pool in which Boeing, the Vega division of Lockheed, and Douglas would all participate in the building of the B-17E. The pool became rather irreverently known as "B.V.D", after the trade name for a popular line of underwear which had become a household name in America. Production of the B-17E at the main Boeing plant at Seattle was to be augmented by another Boeing plant at Wichita, Kansas. The Douglas plant at Santa Monica, California was to be joined in B-17E production by a new Douglas plant at Long Beach, California which had been built specifically for Fortress production. However, before the plan could reach fruition, the B-17F was ready for production, and the F was the first version to built jointly by all three companies. No B-17Es were actually built by either Lockheed or Douglas." 
This also included getting Studebaker to build Cyclone engines, First engines came out the door in Feb 1942 and Studebaker went on to build 6,091 engines in 1942, 23,066 in 1943 and 27,920 in 1944 (roughly 3/4s of all Cyclones made in 1944).

Interrupting programs of this size and trying to switch both engines and air frames is not easy and creates some rather large production holes.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 19, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> I don't see how the mosquito could have accomplished one of the Fortresses greatest contributions - dragging the LW into the air where escorting fighter could knock them down. The whole point of the mossie was to avoid interception.



I disagree. _If_ Mosquitoes were used in sufficient numbers and _if_ Mosquitoes were doing equivalent damage the Luftwaffe would be forced to respond. And that means sending fighters.

Even so, close escort of Mosquitoes was problematic. The escorts and the bombers would both be forced to fly at compromised speeds, causing a reduction in range for both.

Instead the escort fighters would be used more independently. And if the Luftwaffe didn't rise to meet the Mosquitoes the escorts would be free to hunt the fighters at their own airbases.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 19, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> *HOOOOWWWWWLL*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My understanding is that the B-17 could only carry 2 x 2000lb bombs internally. It could carry additional bombs to that, of course.

The USAAF's most popular bombs were:
1. 500lb GP 3.7m dropped
2. 100lb GP 2.1m
3. 100lb Incendiary 1.7m
4. 250lb GP 1.3m
5. 120lb Fragmentation Cluster 1.0m
6. 1000lb GP 750k
7. 440lb Fragmentation Cluster 360k
8. 260lb Individual Fragmentation 320k
9. 228lb Incendiary Cluster 255k
10. 69lb Fragmentation Cluster (Parachute) 100k
11. 2000lb GP 65k
12. 500lb Incendiary 64k
13. 500lb SAP 31k
14. 1000lb SAP 23k
34. 4000lb HE 1.2k
35. 1600lb AP 1.1k

Apart from the 2000lb and 4000lb bombs there the Mosquito could probably carry the RAF equivalent. And after mid '43 they had the capability to haul the 4000lb bomb. The RAF didn't have a 2000lb MC bomb, but did have a 1900lb GP bomb - which was low in charge to weight ratio.

To my mind the question is not how many bombs can an aircraft haul over a distance, but to how many the aircraft can put on target.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 19, 2013)

wuzak said:


> To my mind the question is not how many bombs can an aircraft haul over a distance, but to how many the aircraft can put on target.



If the B-17 is shot down then no bombs on target. With 2 Mosquitoes with a total of the B-17s bomb load, if one is shot down, at least the other Mosquito puts some bombs on target.

Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, World War II

Table 137 -- Number of Bombs Dropped Overseas, By Type of Bomb: 1943 to 1945
Army Air Forces in World War II


----------



## wuzak (Jan 19, 2013)

davebender said:


> I agree.
> 
> Objective is to destroy enemy industrial infrastructure. Which requires hitting factory size objects with bombs of 500 to 2,000 lbs.



4000lb bombs would be better again.
So, probably, would 8000lb bombs, but precious few aircraft in WW2 could do such a thing.

It is also the type of bomb used. I'm not sure if the British thin case "High Capacity" bombs were suitable for industrial targets. I think that the "Medium Capacity" bombs were better suited for such targets. These are equivalent to US GP bombs (roughly 50% charge to weight).

The problem with bigger bombs is that you carry less of them. And accuracy becomes even more vital.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 19, 2013)

The Mosquito was a remarkable plane and with 20/20 _hindsight_ may have been a better choice. 

_However_ when the choices were being made the Mosquito was unproven and in large part it's future performance unknown. 

"W4050 continued to be used for long and varied testing programs, being essentially the experimental "workhorse" for the Mosquito family.[43] In late October 1941, it was taken back to the factory to be fitted with Merlin 61s, the first production Merlins fitted with a two-speed, two-stage supercharger. The first flight with the new engines was on 20 June 1942". At this point you have 3 factories already tooled up for the B-17F with aircraft on the production lines if not already out the door and a 4th factory in the process of being built/tooled up. First bomber Mosquito squadron becomes operational the month before. 

"In April 1943, a decision was made to convert a B Mk IV to carry a 4,000 lb (1,812 kg), thin cased High explosive bomb (nicknamed "Cookie").

"The B-17G was introduced onto the Fortress production line in July of 1943"

BTW, May 1943 sees the Memphis Belle return from it's 25th Mission. 

With the Benefit of Hindsight _perhaps_ the Mosquito might have been the better choice but the decision would have had to have been made around the fall/winter of 1940.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 20, 2013)

These are the British bombs, up to 4,000 lbs used during the war: unfortunately the table doesn't specify whether the numbers and weights dropped are applicable only to the Mosquito - according to the page from the Dambusters Owner's Manual (below), 68,000 4,000 lb "Cookies" were dropped during the war. I just don't know whether Mosquitoes managed to drop over 8,000 of them...





(From Simons; Mosquito The Original Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Pen and Sword 2011, page 168 ).

These are the the larger, more specialised bombs used:


----------



## stona (Jan 20, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> The Mosquitos should suffer fewer losses, but I'm not so sure. Certainly they should spend less time over enemy airspace and be much harder to intercept, but if you are going to put e ought Mosquitos into the air to do the same job as a formation of fortresses the would also be easier to detect than the relatively small flights that were actually used



Exactly so. One of the reasons that the low level penetrations that I described earlier as strategic "pin pricks" were sometimes successful is because they involved few aircraft,were infrequent and thereby were unexpected. They had the element of surprise.Most mornings the Luftwaffe command didn't wake up expecting to have to intercept a low level raid by a few high speed intruders!
To imagine that large formations of Mosquitos could carry out a strategic bombing campaign flying just about every day the weather allowed with the same level of losses as the special raids doesn't seem plausible at all.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## mhuxt (Jan 20, 2013)

Aozora said:


> I just don't know whether Mosquitoes managed to drop over 8,000 of them...


 
Hi Aozora,

Appendix 24 in Sharp Bowyer's "Mosquito" has this:

4,000 lb bombs dropped by Mosquitoes, 1943 - 1945:
HC: 776
M2: 7,469
MC: 141
Inc: 8

Looks like more than 8,000 to me...


----------



## wuzak (Jan 20, 2013)

Aozora said:


> These are the British bombs, up to 4,000 lbs used during the war: unfortunately the table doesn't specify whether the numbers and weights dropped are applicable only to the Mosquito - according to the page from the Dambusters Owner's Manual (below), 68,000 4,000 lb "Cookies" were dropped during the war. I just don't know whether Mosquitoes managed to drop over 8,000 of them...
> View attachment 222197
> 
> (From Simons; Mosquito The Original Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Pen and Sword 2011, page 168 ).
> ...



I don't think the numbers dropped are correct in the first table. For one, the number of 4000lb HC bombs dropped doesn't match the amount in the second excerpt.

Also, 627 Squadron dropped 8 1000lb MC bombs and 4 1000lb GP bombs in the raid on the Gestapo Headquarters in Oslo on 31/12/43.


4000lb High Capacity Bomb has 93,000 4000lb HC bombs dropped during WW2.

256,000+ 1000lb bombs dropped from 1943-1945 1000lb Medium Capacity Bomb

686,000 1000lb GP bombs 1000lb General Purpose Bomb

1.7m 500lb GP or MC bombs dropped 50lb, 120lb, 250lb, 500lb General Purpose Bombs

Interestingly their table shows no use of the 250lb GP bomb in 1943 or after, and only a handful of the 120lb GP bomb.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 20, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Hi Aozora,
> 
> Appendix 24 in Sharp Bowyer's "Mosquito" has this:
> 
> ...



So the numbers only apply to the bombs dropped by Mosquitoes?


----------



## mhuxt (Jan 20, 2013)

Those numbers in Sharp and Bowyer are exclusively 4,000 lb bombs dropped by Mosquitos, yes, the table has totals for other types of bombs (less than 4k) as well.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 20, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Those numbers in Sharp and Bowyer are exclusively 4,000 lb bombs dropped by Mosquitos, yes, the table has totals for other types of bombs (less than 4k) as well.



Sorry, I meant the table posted by Aozora. I have that same book, and the meaning of the table is not explained clearly. 

PS what is the 4000lb M2? Is that the 4000lb MC Mk II?


----------



## mhuxt (Jan 20, 2013)

Not sure, but it seems to have been standard terminology - shows up in the detailed report on the Dresden raid contained in this:

http://www.airpowerstudies.co.uk/APR Vol 5 No 1.pdf


----------



## stona (Jan 20, 2013)

Dresden.







Makes you think but 135,000???????

Steve


----------



## mhuxt (Jan 20, 2013)

Yes, I noticed that too. Best estimate currently, after the "Historikerkomission" is IIRC 25,000. 

Hope I don't get smitten with the Ban Hammer for thread creep - all I wanted to do was show M2 was standard RAF parlance, must be some kind of mine / blast bomb, Cookie Mk.II seems as good a guess as any.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 20, 2013)

I note that on that Mission the first main force bombers took off between 6:10pm and 6:20pm. The Pathfinders marking the target left between 7:57pm and 8:05pm.


----------



## stona (Jan 20, 2013)

wuzak said:


> I note that on that Mission the first main force bombers took off between 6:10pm and 6:20pm. The Pathfinders marking the target left between 7:57pm and 8:05pm.



That must be the 9 Mosquitos. There would have been more marking than that,the various "shifters","backers up" etc. Presumably this was done by Lancasters. This is not at all unusual.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## parsifal (Jan 20, 2013)

stona said:


> Exactly so. One of the reasons that the low level penetrations that I described earlier as strategic "pin pricks" were sometimes successful is because they involved few aircraft,were infrequent and thereby were unexpected. They had the element of surprise.Most mornings the Luftwaffe command didn't wake up expecting to have to intercept a low level raid by a few high speed intruders!
> To imagine that large formations of Mosquitos could carry out a strategic bombing campaign flying just about every day the weather allowed with the same level of losses as the special raids doesn't seem plausible at all.
> Cheers
> Steve




The RAF did NOT attack at every opportunity that the weather permitted. For example over the 113 day period 3rd November 1943 to the 25th February, 1944 BC carried out 31 major raids, 15 of which were against Berlin. The period is generally referred to as the "Battle of Berlin". There were far more than just 31 days of flyable weather in that period. 

Post war, the RAF found that when finally applied to bombing, in terms of useful damage done, the Mosquito had proved 4.95 times cheaper than the Lancaster (AVIA 46/116 De Haviland Mosquito papers, 1939–1945). That estimate include aircrew costs incidentally. Sure they were not really capable of dropping the tonnages of a Lanc per a/c, but a large number of aircraft travelling at twice the speed of a Heavy Bomber, not as troublked by flak (due to the high speed) and untroubled by enemy fighters (or mostly untroubled) is going to do a lot of damage if thge numbers are there. and though two wings is not 1000 a/c, I dont believe we will find evidence of a higher loss rate for Mosquitoes in those operations where they were used in concentrated numbers 


Mosquitoes of the two wings attached to the Light strike Bomber Force were attacking Germany in some strength from just after D-Day onward. The raids were undertaken mostly by Mosquitoes in this outfit, and were increasingly sizable....about two wings at maximum. Before that, Mosquito operations were necesarily small scale. All of 2 TAF suffered high levels of attrition during operation Clarion, including the Mossies. I think that was because the RAF tactical air forces were attacking in daylight, and against more heavily defended targets in the north, where flak was diabolical. If we are going to compare apples to apples, thern we need to look at the loss rates per sortie of other tactical bombers employed on similar operations during the day, and in the same area of operations. Not easy material to get a hold of, but worth trying for I think.

But it is not true that Mosquitoes were not attacking in some strength, that all their raids were easy, or against lightly defended targets. Quite the opposite....they tended to get the toughest assignments in fact.


----------



## stona (Jan 20, 2013)

31 out of 113 days at that time of year may not be so far off the total number of flyable nights. 25% at that time of year? You should see the view from my model room today.






For example 3rd/4th November BC raided Dusseldorf and Cologne in force. 
The next 6 nights they carried out minor operations,like the 7 Mosquitos bombing Cologne and Duisberg on the 8/9th. This would suggest the weather had closed in that week,improving on the night of 10/11th when BC attacked Modane "in difficult conditions". 
The following night the weather had cleared and Cannes was attacked in "clear" conditions. 617 Sqn had a go at the Antheor viaduct but missed. 
There followed another four nights of minor operations mostly carried out by Mosquitos before BC went to Ludwigshaven in marginal conditions,it was an H2S blind bombing raid without target marking. This pattern repeats itself throughout the period.
There is a large difference between a flyable night and one on which a large force of heavy bombers can be assembled and sent off to a distant target. The long nights favoured deeper raids but the RAF never did beat the weather.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 20, 2013)

Theres one big problem with ramping up Mossie production. Materials, its a relatively (if expense is no problem) easy to dig a big hole in the ground and build a smelter to produce more Aluminium but there is a finite source of the right wood needed for the Mossie. The thin wood plies were cut from relatively rare stands of trees, they couldnt just cut any old Birch tree down and expect to get the quality needed.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 20, 2013)

Some propaganda on the construction of the FB 40s, might give some idea of the construction needed

Go Wood: "The Wooden Wonder" - The de Havilland Mosquito Bomber


Go to the embedded video

I seem to remeber that the Aussie Mosquitoes were delayed by the non-availability of Canadian Birch. If memory serves correctly, I think they eventually found a local alternative.
I think the biggest materials problem would have been finiding an alternative to the Ecuadorian Balso that was used. I dont think any alternative was ever found during the war for that material


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 20, 2013)

The Mosquito's plywood was made from Canadian birch, and Ecudorian balsawood.
There may be birch in Britain, but balsawood only grows in a few tropical areas of the world, South America and some in Asia.


----------



## stona (Jan 20, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> The Mosquito's plywood was made from Canadian birch, and Ecudorian balsawood.
> There may be birch in Britain, but balsawood only grows in a few tropical areas of the world, South America and some in Asia.



And I reckon our Canadian friends have got a lot more forestry than we have 

Over to Hermann,

"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again..."

Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 20, 2013)

Fom what I have read the Birch trees needed to be virgin first growth, straight, slow growing and knot free. They also needed to be from a relatively narrow latitude, south they would be too fast growing without the uniformity required. North is conifer country. 

We have Birch Tres in Britain but they fulfill none of the above criteria usually being scrubland trees and shrubs. I would say the only two places that had the above mentioned trees in readily available stands would be Canada and the Soviet Union, possibly also Baltic countries and the US.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 20, 2013)

You are quite right about the wood supply. Not only do you need the Birch veneer, you need the Balsa wood core and you need the Spruce for structural things like spars.

Anybody who doubts this can trot on down to their local lumber yard and see the difference between "clear" pine and even No 1 pine. "clear" has no knots and that is what is needed for aircraft grade wood, Long straight grain pices with no knotsor other imperfections. 

You could probably build a metal equivalent. You just have to decide to do so in 1940/early 41 in order to get a program going big enough to actually replace one or more of the 4 engine planes. Which means selecting an engine and plants to build both.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 20, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Hi Aozora,
> 
> Appendix 24 in Sharp Bowyer's "Mosquito" has this:
> 
> ...



Yep, and I forgot about these tables in Sharpe and Bowyer:


----------



## mhuxt (Jan 20, 2013)

I've never read anything to indicate that Mosquito production plans were limited / reduced due to the availability of wood.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 20, 2013)

I need to get a copy of Sharpe Bowter, I can see......

Whats the title and publisher please


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 20, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> I've never read anything to indicate that Mosquito production plans were limited / reduced due to the availability of wood.



People were talking about replacing 4 engine bombers with Mossies. I was pointing out that the wood resources were finite whereas aluminium supply is for all intents and purposes in the 40s limitless. If the US had started churning out Mossies in the numbers talked about then the timber might not have been available.


----------



## stona (Jan 20, 2013)

One statistic to be drawn from those figures,relevant for anyone planning a strategic bombing campaign, is that a Lancaster dropped nearly six times the tonnage of bombs per sortie that a Mosquito did.
Mind you there are lies,damned lies and statistics!
Steve


----------



## wuzak (Jan 20, 2013)

stona said:


> One statistic to be drawn from those figures,relevant for anyone planning a strategic bombing campaign, is that a Lancaster dropped nearly six times the tonnage of bombs per sortie that a Mosquito did.



And that is particularly important if the main type of bombing is to be area bombing.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 20, 2013)

Steve, I dont think anyone can argue seriously that the lanc was not the mainstay of the Bomber offensive. And it did a great job IMO. I also dont think the mosquito, in the form that it was fielded could in any way replace the lanc. A four engied version of the Mosquito would have been needed to achieve that. 

The big advantage of a mosquito like technology was its speed. The Mosquito was able trtavel fast enough to obviate the worst effects of both flak and interceptors. Even if not fully immune, the runs are there for all to see that it suffered a much lower attrition rate. What may be at issue is whether it was more accurate, and whether it was given "light duties" which in turn skewed its true survivability.

I amintain the Mosquito was not given light duties, and achieved a much higher level of accuracy compared to any of its allied contemporaries. Perhaps a comparable type might have been the A-26, but I dont have any information on that type. I dont believe that accuracy was achieved by any magical or mythical quality of the aircraft. Mossies were an inherently stable aircraft, but that would have little, if any great effect on bombing accuracy. I thin the main reasons why the type was so accurate was because of its speed and versatility. these two components meant that relatively more crew attention could be given to the bombing task and less to getting agitated at being shot down. Give the crews a decent shot at lining up the target (any aircraft) and they will be more accurate. 

Now, as an excercise, the question begs, was the lancaster (and its related brethren), liksley to be a accurate as a hypothetical "super Mosquito. I dont think they would, simply because they are not as flexible as the Mosquito was. all that was really lacking for the Mosquito was bombload. Dtretch the design to carry a larger bombload, without compromising speed or other qualities, and I think you might have a war changing aircraft.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 20, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I need to get a copy of Sharpe Bowter, I can see......
> 
> Whats the title and publisher please



Mosquito, Faber Faber 1971:
Mosquito: C.Martin Sharp, Michael J.F. Bowyer: 9780571095315: Amazon.com: Books

There is a new updated edition, but it is pretty expensive from Amazon

Mosquito: Cm/Mjf Sharpe/Bowyer: 9780947554415: Amazon.com: Books

OR

Sharp - Mosquito - AbeBooks


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 20, 2013)

> One statistic to be drawn from those figures,relevant for anyone planning a strategic bombing campaign, is that a Lancaster dropped nearly six times the tonnage of bombs per sortie that a Mosquito did.



... and all that proves is that the Lancaster can carry a bigger bomb load than the Mosquito. Like Wuzak said, useful if you want to carry out area bombing - as Thunderclap was. Also, how many bombs that the RAF's heavies dropped actually hit the intended target if it was confined to a factory or such like and not a 'city' sized area? 

Part of the issue with the Mosquito is that production could not keep up with demand for the type; almost all RAF commands wanted it and had to wait their turn for the fulfilment of orders; this would have been a greater hindrance to delivery of the type in greater numbers to any other command than a possible shortage of raw materials, which did not seem to have any impact on production, in Britain at least.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 20, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Now, as an excercise, the question begs, was the lancaster (and its related brethren), liksley to be a accurate as a hypothetical "super Mosquito. I dont think they would, simply because they are not as flexible as the Mosquito was. all that was really lacking for the Mosquito was bombload. Dtretch the design to carry a larger bombload, without compromising speed or other qualities, and I think you might have a war changing aircraft.



Just changing the way some of the 4 engined bombers were operated might be "war changing."







At 53,000lbs the plane could hit 295mph at 3,500ft and 310mph at 12,000ft. 

Maximum weak cruise was 275mph at 11,000ft and 285mph at 17,500ft. 

At 65,000lbs range with full fuel ( 3174Imp Gal, the bomb bay had up to 1020Imp gal) Range (calculated, no allowance for take-off/climb) with a 3,597lb pay load was 3,750 miles at Max weak speed of 265mph at 15,000ft. 3950 miles at intermediate speed of 232mph, and 4501 miles at most economical speed of 200mph. 

Basically stick a pointier nose on the Lancaster, get rid of the dorsal turret and cruise the plane at max weak mixture or close to it and you could pick up 25% or more in speed and still carry a substantial bomb load to most anyplace in Europe. Cutting the fuel by 1/3 would give over 7,000lb more bombs (10,500lb total) and cut the "range" to 2500 miles or perhaps a usable radius of 800 miles? 

While not a 4 engine Mosquito it would cut time over Europe by 20%. (Please note I am leaving the tail turret in place and I hope the estimates are conservative.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 21, 2013)

Its interesting I think that the four engined bombers and the mosquito can all trace a lineage back to the same specification (no 12/36). 

This specification was very ambitious....In the 1930s, the Royal Air Force was interested primarily in twin-engine bombers. These designs minimised demands on engine production and maintenance, both of which were already stretched with the introduction of so many new types into service. The British invested heavily in the development of huge engines in the 2,000 horsepower (1,500 kW) class in order to improve performance. In the late 1930s, none were ready for production. The U.S. and USSR were developing bombers with four smaller engines, which proved to have excellent range and fair lifting capacity, so in 1936 the RAF also decided to investigate the feasibility of the four-engined bomber.

The Air Ministry Specification B.12/36 had several requirements. The bomb load was to be a maximum of 14,000 lb (6,350 kg) carried to a range of 2,000 miles (3218 km) or a lesser payload of 8,000 lb (3,629 kg) to 3,000 miles (4,800 km) (incredibly demanding for the era). It had to cruise at 230 or more mph at 15,000 ft (4,600 m) and have three gun turrets (in nose, amidships and rear) for defence. The aircraft should also be able to be used as a troop transport for 24 soldiers, and be able to use catapult assistance for takeoff. The idea was that it would fly troops to far corners of the British Empire and then support them with bombing. To help with this task as well as ease production, it needed to be able to be broken down into parts, for transport by train. Since it could be operating from limited "back country" airfields, it needed to lift off from a 500 ft (150 m) runway and able to clear 50 ft (15 m) trees at the end. 

This was a fantastically difficult specification to meet, and one that ultimately no single type was able to fulfil. But in the context of 1936, the specification was not calling for a slow aircraft. In the context of 1936, an aircraft able to cruise at 230mph would have been able to outrun most contemporary fighters (eg AR 68 or Me 109B). The defensive armament would have been difficult for the fighters of 1936 to cope with. 

However we know that techn ology soon overtook these comfortable positions. the firepower, speed and other performance data of fighters exploded after 1936. The heavy bombers developed to meet this spec (and related specs) tended to try and meet the more important elements of the spec, which was seen as the bomb truck aspects of the spec. 

It is difficult to accept but the eventual mossie concept also grew from spec 12/36, although DeHavilland was sceptical about the viability of carrying the required bombload, and meeting the other performance specs as well. DeHavilland followed the pathway of the high performance unarmed bomber with small bombload. The heavy bomber constructrs tended to develop heavy lift and heavy defensive armament as well as fairly long range. so, in the context of 1936-40, was it conceptually possible to develop a high speed heavy bomber? 

I think it was, but compromises would be needed. The concept i have in mind would be an unarmed bomber with a bombload of of around 6000lbs and arange of about 1500 miles. I would specify two types for development....an unarmed bomb truck and a bomber escort version with no bombs but heavy defensive armament.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 21, 2013)

So, back to the original question....

Most important characteristics for a strategic bomber?

1. Range
2. Bomb Load (ie weight)
3. Speed
4. Bomb load flexibility (ie combinations of bombs that can be used)
5. Armour
6. Defensive Firepower
7. Accuracy (assuming accuracy is much the same for all types under the same circumstances - ie bombing height)
8. Ceiling

Have I missed any....is the order wrong.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 21, 2013)

If they are in order of importance, i would switch 2 and 3


----------



## Aozora (Jan 21, 2013)

parsifal said:


> The heavy bomber constructrs tended to develop heavy lift and heavy defensive armament as well as fairly long range. so, in the context of 1936-40, was it conceptually possible to develop a high speed heavy bomber?
> 
> I think it was, but compromises would be needed. The concept i have in mind would be an unarmed bomber with a bombload of of around 6000lbs and arange of about 1500 miles. I would specify two types for development....an unarmed bomb truck and a bomber escort version with no bombs but heavy defensive armament.



Given the technology of the time I don't know if it would have been as easy as you imagine. First problem - two engines or four? The main candidates were Merlin, Sabre, Vulture, Hercules. Two Sabre or Vulture would possibly give the required power, but how fast would it need to be to be able to outrun current and future fighters (one of the questions the Air Ministry wrestled with regarding the Mosquito)? Size? Without armament, to carry 6,000 lbs, somewhere between a Mosquito and the prototype Manchester. Bomb load - all internal, or a combination of internal and wing racks? What size bombs, and in what combinations - eg: 24 x 250 lbs, 12 x 500lbs, 6 x 1,000 lbs NB: there were no 2,000 lb bombs until 1940 and the 4,000 lb bomb didn't enter service until 1941.

To add heavy defensive armament would surely require provision for gun turrets - hand held weapons wouldn't work and an aircraft big enough to carry 6,000 lbs would be too big to use as a fighter. This would mean reinforced structure around turret locations, meaning added weight (example: the B-25B added two turrets, but at the expense of a lower top speed over the B-25/B-25A.) How many turrets would be needed to make a good escort and what type of armament? 

The British did explore similar concepts, albeit later than 36-40 but there were just too many compromises - here is the Hawker P.1005 (4,000lb bomb load); plus there was the "Super Mosquito"  described here


----------



## Neil Stirling (Jan 21, 2013)

As the Lancaster is perhaps best known as the RAF's best heavy bomber, I have endeavoured to put together a list using some of wuzak's headings.

The Lancaster.

Range:

Königsberg raid 950 mile each way (Flying to the target up over Sweden) 2154 galls. Full internal fuel.
(Men Of Air: The Doomed Youth Of Bomber Command. By Kevin Wilson)
8,000lbs made up of 1* 2,000lbs and 12 “j” cluster. http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/records/roh_raaf/crews/467/roh_raaf-crews-467-90d.pdf

Tirpitz, Tromso Norway from Lossiemouth Scotland. 1,058 mile radius. Modified aircraft with a total of 2,404 galls fuel and no front turret. 12,000lbs Tall Boy.

The Lancaster could carry an additional 400 gallon fuel tank in the bomb bay (2,554 gallons total) and 7,000lbs of bombs.

Maximum bomb load:

15,000lbs made up of 13*1,000,lbs + 4*500lbs. (Employment of Strategic Air Forces in support of land operations A.V.M. R S Blucke, CB, OBE, DSO, AFC. 1946.)

22,000lbs. Grand Slam.

Bomb types:

22,000lbs Grand Slam and 12,000lbs Tallboy.
12,000lbs,8,000lbs, 4,000lbs and 2,000lbs H.C
2,000lbs AP
1,000lbs, 500lbs, 250lbs, GP, MC
Incendiaries 
Mines
Target markers. 

Avionics:

H2S, Fishpond, Monica, Gee, Boozer, Gee H, Oboe, Village Inn. 

Speed:

Maximum speed 287mph at 11,500ft
Most economical cruise 216mph at 20,000ft
Max weak mixture cruise	227mph at 20,000ft

Defensive armament:

8*.303” Browning mg’s in turrets or later aircraft up to 2*.303” and 4*.50”Browning mg’s in turrets.

Operating altitude:

20,000ft.

Armour: Some and self-sealing fuel tanks.

Neil.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 21, 2013)

Avro wanted to build a RR Nene engined cleaned up Lancaster as an expedient to improve the Lanc whilst they worked on a new jet bomber. I wonder if this might have fulfilled the Super Mosquito requirement, obviously range would have been cut and probably bombload with overload tanks in the bomb bay. I have no idea of the performance figures that were projected but it would probably have made the Lanc invulnerable to all but the Me 262.

Google brought this up a test bed for Nene and Ghost engines


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 21, 2013)

Avro 691 Lancastrian Jet - jet engine testbed, research transport


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 21, 2013)

Dont know whether they intended to run 2 jet engines and 2 piston engines or if they intended 4 jet engines. If the 4 Nene was what they meant then some radical surgery would be needed for the undercarrige.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2013)

Great stuff, people.

Looking at tables Neil kindly posted, could we conclude that Berlin was out of reach for a Lanc carrying the 22000 lb Grand Slam bomb?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 21, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Great stuff, people.
> 
> Looking at tables Neil kindly posted, could we conclude that Berlin was out of reach for a Lanc carrying the 22000 lb Grand Slam bomb?



with that data was out, but with reduced allowance woulb be possible (270/1140 it's a very high proportion for allowance) 

... a this point that map i've posted is wrong i'm sorry but was a good site


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 21, 2013)

> 1. Range
> 2. Bomb Load (ie weight)
> 3. Speed
> 4. Bomb load flexibility (ie combinations of bombs that can be used)
> ...



1) Range
2) Speed
3) Ceiling
4) Size of bomb load
5) Versatility of bomb load
6) Armour
7) Defensive armament

I haven't included accuracy because if I were waging a campaign with this hypothetical bomber, the emphasis during a strategic campaign would be the destruction of the target as swiftly and as effectively as possible, which puts accuracy as the top consideration when bombing; it determines how many aircraft can be used, how often the target needs to be attacked and so on, which then determines the size of load to be carried, which then affects range, the route to and from the target, airfields the aircraft can operate from etc. 

Height is not necessarily the only influence on accuracy, as it is generally perceived, so I've moved ceiling up a bit in importance. Accuracy isn't necessarily dependent on the type of aircraft used. Radio navigation aids of the time that improved accuracy could be carried by both large and smaller aircraft, but their use was vitally important, more so than we give them credit for. As they weren't necessarily a function of the individual aircraft we discount them, but their importance grew as the war unfolded and without them a modern bomber fleet was just a waste of effort by the end of the war.


----------



## stona (Jan 22, 2013)

That's a fair enough selection of criteria.
Now do I go with the Lancaster (for 4 and 5 and I suppose 7) or the Mosquito (for 2 and 3 and 8 )? 
I'm going with the Lancaster,but then I wouldn;'t want to be without Mosquitos either 
I may have got a splinter off the fence I'm sitting on!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 23, 2013)

Mike Williams has added Lancaster Halifax bombers data on his web site, from 13th Jan 2013.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 23, 2013)

so, if the British had developed an aerodynamically clean design, with four engines, say Merlins with 1200hp or thereabouts, carrying say 8000 lbs of bombs, what would its speed potentially be. There would be a crew of just two, reducing the weight a bit, and no turrets. Im curious what people think a design along the lines of those specifications might be capable of....


----------



## Neil Stirling (Jan 23, 2013)

And some extra B-24 Liberator information.

Neil.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 23, 2013)

Aozora said:


> First problem - two engines or four?



Depends how big the airplane and how powerful the available engines. In the mid '30s the preferred option was two engines.




Aozora said:


> The main candidates were Merlin, Sabre, Vulture, Hercules.



Sabre and Vulture were in different power class to Merlin and Hercules. A larger, heavier unarmed high speed bomber would probably need one of the first two. As Volkert chose the Vulture for his paper project.




Aozora said:


> but how fast would it need to be to be able to outrun current and future fighters (one of the questions the Air Ministry wrestled with regarding the Mosquito)?



How long is a piece of string?

Volkert's paper P.13/36 bomber had an estimated speed of 380mph, which would have been very competitive with contemporary fighters. Whether or not it actually could that is another matter. The key is that when fighters improve their performance, so should the bomber.

Note also that the Mosquito remained difficult to intercept for fighters with higher performance.




Aozora said:


> Size? Without armament, to carry 6,000 lbs, somewhere between a Mosquito and the prototype Manchester.



I would think so. Something the size of a A-26 ought to do the trick....

Or the P.1005.




Aozora said:


> Bomb load - all internal, or a combination of internal and wing racks? What size bombs, and in what combinations - eg: 24 x 250 lbs, 12 x 500lbs, 6 x 1,000 lbs NB: there were no 2,000 lb bombs until 1940 and the 4,000 lb bomb didn't enter service until 1941.



Assuming we are working around P.13/36 we would have the requirement to carry two 18" torpedoes. Not sure how much they weigh.

It is this requirement that led to the bomb bay capacity for the Lancaster.




Aozora said:


> To add heavy defensive armament would surely require provision for gun turrets - hand held weapons wouldn't work



The point was to get rid of defensive armament and gain higher top speed.




Aozora said:


> an aircraft big enough to carry 6,000 lbs would be too big to use as a fighter.



The P-61's empty weight was heavier than the Heinkel He 111's or the Armstrong Whitworth Whitley, both of which could carry more than 6000lb of bombs and had much less power than the P-61.

The He 219 was also kind of enormous!

The P.1005 would also have come in a fighter version.




Aozora said:


> How many turrets would be needed to make a good escort and what type of armament?



Escorts?


----------



## parsifal (Jan 23, 2013)

I should answer that last question. Having a completely unarmed night bomber force does have some dangers to it. however if some of the bomber stream arent bombers at all, but flying battleships not carrying bombs, the enemy attackes arent going to know what it is they are attacking. This is a night bomber force....the idea wont work for a day bomber force. Its basically Mosquito NFs flying in the stream, masquerading as bombers and giving hell to the German Nightfighters, repackaged.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 23, 2013)

Just a few points, Volkert's alternative to P.13/36 was just a paper exercise and was never indended on being built; it was conceived by Volkert to demonstrate a point and was in no means to have been the basis of an actual design. As for the P.1005, well, the later variants of the Mossie could do what Hawker claimed the P.1005 was going to be capable of. It's also worth remembering that the Avro 679, which became the Manchester was the chosen aircraft for P.13/36. For its time it embodied some advanced features and really was state of the art. Neither Avro, nor Rolls or the Air Ministry foresaw what was going to happen to it. Based on the excellence of the original design, the four-engined Manchester was made all the easier.



> however if some of the bomber stream arent bombers at all, but flying battleships not carrying bombs, the enemy attackes arent going to know what it is they are attacking.



Wasn't this idea suggested at one stage? Quite apart from the American idea of arming a B-17 with as many machine guns as possible instead as a war load, but with Mosquitoes.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 24, 2013)

The whole problem with all fast un/lightly armed bombers was that they had usually become obsolete within a year or two as fighter speeds was easier and cheaper to increase and overtake them. Conventional bombers had much longer longetivity - and far greater loads -, and given the enormous costs of building up a bomber force, simply replacing them every year wasn't that much of a viable option.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 24, 2013)

Is there an example for comparison, armed vs. unarmed bomber, in both 2 and 4 engine 'flavor'?


----------



## wuzak (Jan 24, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> The whole problem with all fast un/lightly armed bombers was that they had usually become obsolete within a year or two as fighter speeds was easier and cheaper to increase and overtake them. Conventional bombers had much longer longetivity - and far greater loads -, and given the enormous costs of building up a bomber force, simply replacing them every year wasn't that much of a viable option.



If the bombers used the same engines then the performance improvements should keep up with those of fighters.

FWIW conventional armed bombers were slaughtered when without fighter escort. Can't see unarmed bombers being any worse.

For an armed high speed bomber you would probably only need rear defence.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 24, 2013)

> The whole problem with all fast un/lightly armed bombers was that they had usually become obsolete within a year or two as fighter speeds was easier and cheaper to increase and overtake them.



Oddly enough, this was one of the reasons that members of the Air Ministry put forward as to why they were reluctant to endorse the Mosquito - and funnily enough, it doesn't hold water. Sure, the enemy are likely to create a faster fighter, even more advanced than your high speed bomber, then you create a faster high speed bomber. To counter jet fighters, the British built a jet bomber; the successor to the Mosquito was the Canberra, which was overtaken by even faster aircraft, then they built high altitude bombers - for every measure there is a counter measure - and so the cycle continues. 

If you use the excuse that the enemy could possiby out think you, you can never hope to get ahead. The Mosquito proved that it could prevail and perform its tasks with very high efficiency, despite what the Germans threw at it. Post war, the Mosquito sold like hot cakes to Britain's allies and anyone who wanted them; funnily enough, so did the Canberra. There are still B-57 airframes - albeit highly modified ones in use in the USA and the RAF retired its last recon Canberras in 2006. This disproves your theory that high speed bomber designs are short lived.

Obsolete means no longer in production, but still in service; the Mosquito was in production between 1940 (if you count the prototype) and 1950. So much for lack of longevity.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 24, 2013)

Knowing what I know, I would start the XB-42 program in 1940 so that it would be in produced in time to support the late 1943 bombing effort. No radical aerodynamics to deal with just solid engineering. Put in a couple of Allison 89/91 engines with 1600 hp combat at 26.5k ft and you have a bomber capable of carrying 6k plus lbs of bombs for 1600 miles with a top speed of over 350 mph and a cruise speed over 250 mph. The actual XB-42 had 1800 hp engines and had a top speed of 410 mph and a cruise speed of 312 mph in 1944.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 24, 2013)

David, the 89/91 engines were the turbo ones, so if Douglas is smart with inter-coolers, such a Mixmaster would be faster than the historical one. The 2 x 1800 HP of the historical XB-42 were available at the deck, much less above 20000 ft - circa 1100 HP at 25000 ft.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 25, 2013)

Thanks. I think they had good technology to do this just didn't see the need, I guess. They would have to solve heating issues but that is just good engineering work and it seems they did on the original one. It had potential for being an impressive bomber.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 25, 2013)

Such a bomber, scaled down some 10%, even with single stage V-1710s would've been a tough costumer for many a fighter. Eg. the V-1710-63, a mid-1942 engine used on P-39, was managing 1325 HP for T.O, and almost 1600 HP at 2500 ft, WER. 
Not much of altitude performance, though, so the plane would be best operated under 10000 ft.


----------



## Glider (Jan 25, 2013)

The idea of a rear firing defence when you have two socking great props behind you, always made me wonder if that was a good idea.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 25, 2013)

The guns were to be installed at the 'trailing edge of the wing', one per side, so they would be able to cover plenty of rear hemisphere. Guess the defensive armament was the nice wrapping to sell the plane to the bomber generals, the ones preferring the armed bombers. When we can recall that initial projects for what would become Mosquito were too much for the RAF/AM to swallow, not such a bad idea.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 25, 2013)

A few A-20s _MAY_ have been fitted with two .30 cal guns firing reward from each engine Nacelle, fixed. Sources differ on if the guns were fitted or if so on how many planes. Martin Maryland had four .303s in rear fuselage Fixed but angled down for strafing? 

A lot of bombers/ground attack planes had rearward firing fixed guns. (He 111 tail cone gun). Effectiveness was dubious at best. But fixed guns imposed nowhere near the weight/volume penalty that movable guns did. 

Germans _planned_ two 20mm guns for the Arado 234 and if that couldn't out run fighters I am not sure what could


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 25, 2013)

The XB-42 was to have movable guns. Guess that the speed the concept was able to make would've rendered the guns useless.


----------

