Attack aircraft

4,000 lb cookie was relatively inaccurate. It's about the last weapon ground pounders would want for CAS.

Mosquito was hardly a 'raw power' machine - seem much more like a triumph of aerodynamics?

davebender said:

4,000 lb cookie was relatively inaccurate. It's about the last weapon ground pounders would want for CAS.

Click to expand...

I should imagine in a low-level pointblank attack a Mosquito couldn't miss something like a factory no matter what type of bombs they were carrying.
By contrast, standard level-bombing at high altitude by other bombers was hopelessly inaccurate and wasteful, even assuming they managed to get to the target without being intercepted and shot down.
The Mosquito was so fast it was almost immune to interception.

That only holds true at 30,000 feet where Mosquitos normally operated. Flying at CAS altitude with a bomb load is a different matter.

I will still not negate the IL-2 from the equation. With correct tactics and fighter cover they could really be deadly. Especially the PTAB bomblets raged havoc on the ground. If only they had better engine to carry all that mass around.

A lorry passes by a sign that warns of the danger of low-flying enemy aircraft in the Western Desert, 22 March 1942.

davebender said:

That only holds true at 30,000 feet where Mosquitos normally operated. Flying at CAS altitude with a bomb load is a different matter.

Click to expand...

No, Mossie daylight bombers lost fewer of their number to Luftwaffe aircraft at low level than high.

The Bf-110F2 was an excellent midwar GA A/C. They were used in russia, the med, norway, north Afrika and the west and gave an excellent account if themselve.
It featured more improved cockpit and engine armour, could carry two ts of bombs and had relatively good low level performances with Db601E.

Hi Mhuxt, where did you get the combat loss data?

I have a list of all Mosquito losses by aircraft number, but it doesn't say if they were combat losses, operational losses, or anything ... just "lost." Got it at: Mosquito Losses by Squadron and have no idea if the data are valid or not, but the losses are listed by aircraft number. According to the list, there were 7,781 Mosquitos built with 6,710 being built during WWII. 516 were lost in WWII (7.7%) and another 20 were lost post-war.

As I said above, there is no breakout as to what type of loss each was. Several could have been lost to termites for all the information given.

Now that I found this list, I need to look for loss totals for some other types. I don't know if an overall loss rate of 7.7% is high or low. It is very high for a combat loss rate, but many aircraft had substantial losses in training and operational use other than combat. Some were lost when other aircraft collided with them on the ground in a crowded parking area. Some weerre even lost when they were rammed by a truck on the ground. Some were lost to mundane mid-air collisions in both clear and IFR skies.

Interestingly enough little to no explanatory text is shown. If I had to take an educated guess, I'd say this list includes losses from all causes. It might be a good list (who would fake Mosquito loss data? Only us WWII aircraft nuts are probably interested anyway) but also might not be. I'd like to see it verified from at least some other source before taking it as probably true.

Using a link provided by our friend Vincenzo (post: Air Force losses in WWII) I downloaded the data for RAF Bomber Command for WWII. My intent was investigatory only.

I find Bomber Command flew 372,6550 sorties and had 8,617 losses for an average loss rate of 2.3%. The planes with the lowest loss rate for bomber command were the Mustang and Beaufighter with zero losses in a combined 18 missions (not much contribution there or Bomber Command didn't have but one of each?), followed by the B-17 with 7 losses in 1,517 sorties, followed by the Liberator with 3 losses in 615 sorties, followed by the Mosquito with 229 losses in 39,487 sorties for a 0.6% loss rate per sortie. The Lightning was next with a 2.0% loss rate and everything went up from there. The Lancaster and Hallifax were about in the middle with 2.2% loss rate for both and the Manchester was highest at 5.8%.

Interestingly enough the Fairey Battle had a lower loss rate than the Lancaster at 2.1%, but only flew 287 sorties with 6 losses. Perhaps the Battle was used by other commands more or was withdrawn early. 6 Losses don't seem to me to amount to much in a war, so the explanation has to be losses by other commands.

You can get the data at: BC - Group Stats

Thanks again, Vincenzo!

Hi Greg,

Variety of sources - Chorley's Bomber Command Losses, the on-line txt file of Mosquito aircraft (actually a transcription of the data in the Air Britain serial number books), Tony Woods' Luftwaffe claims lists, some squadron histories and various bits and pieces on the net.

Most importantly, there's a full list of sorties undertaken by 105 Squadron and 139 Mossies when they were in 2 Group in '42 and '43 in Sharp Bowyer's book on the Mosquito; that list also includes a brief descriptor for the sorties which provides information as to high / low-level.

Nota bene - I'm speaking about the unarmed Mossie bombers, not the cannon/mg-armed FB.VI fighter-bombers which were in 2 Group from late '43 through the end of the war, which rarely if ever encountered Luftwaffe fighters, as I was posting in response to a comment re: Mossie vulnerability to aircraft at high or low altitude.

I actually put all the Mossie Day Bomber stuff which I had together in an Excel file and posted it up here for anyone interested to download, will see if I can find the link and re-post.

Vincenzo's link is a good one for BC Mossie info, as it separates out the various types of Mossie sorties (RCM, Weather, Night-Fighting, Bombing)

Found the file I was looking for, was initially posted in the "Metal Mosquito" thread. Info I posted at the time (including stuff about the switch from high- to low-level sorties and the effect on losses) was:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/at...4693-metal-mosquito-day-moss-loss-vs-bc-2.zip Brief file I put together on daylight Mosquito bomber losses. Go through it from the first tab down. First tab shows overall losses, looks pretty high. Second tab shows that as time went on, the overall loss rate diminished. Third tab shows how the loss rate was brought down, by looking at loss rate over the previous 100 sorties. Fourth tab shows the trendline (logarithmic) for the previous 100 sorties. Fifth tab contrasts the prevoius graph with BC night losses by month. Fifth to seventh show all of the above, with info for the two squadrons, 105 and 139. Eighth tab shows how and when the focus changed from high- to low-level sorties. Next shows high vs low vs monthly loss rate, and trend of monthly loss rate. Next shows aircraft sorties by size of formations dispatched. Next shows both high/low and size of formation. Next tab ("format size pivot") is just data for the graph. Final tab with any meaning for the current discussion is "format size losses" which shows that the most effective / low-loss raids were at low level, by formations of 6-12 aircraft, also reason for losses - note losses through collision on raids with more than 12 aircraft.

Loss info tab has description of individual losses.

The rest is calculations / data for the graphs.


In terms of the current thread and my assertion that daylight Mossie bombers were less vulnerable to LW aircraft at low level than at high level, have a squizz at the tab entitled "FomationSizeLosses". You'll see that the crews of 105 and 139 undertook 220 sorties at high level and suffered 9 losses to aircraft (6 to 190s, 3 to 109s), and 507 sorties at low level, during the courses of which they suffered 11 losses to aircraft (9 to 190s, 2 to 109s). Quick calculation says these are loss rates to aircraft only of 2.2% at low level, 4.1% at high level.

There's also a couple of graphs which show the switch from high to low level, one has the monthly loss rate included.


Also Nota Bene - all of the above is an ongoing work in progress, I change it as I find new / more precise information.

A comprehensive list of all Mossies and their fate.

http://www.dehavilland.ukf.net/_DH98 prodn list.txt

Aircraft Type : Operational Losses by Night and Day

BC - Statistics

Other stats given, so take a look.

Yes, that txt link is the one which seems to have been transcribed from the Air Britain serials books. They don't seem to give dates on/off squadrons for the Mossies, in contrast to some of the other aircraft types, think the Spitfire info on the same site has dates on and off.

This makes it hard to do any kind of graphing of force strengths.

I also believe it means that "Struck Off Charge" notations in many cases happen well after the point at which the airframe is no longer flying.

GregP said:

I have a list of all Mosquito losses by aircraft number, but it doesn't say if they were combat losses, operational losses, or anything ... just "lost." Got it at: Mosquito Losses by Squadron and have no idea if the data are valid or not, but the losses are listed by aircraft number. According to the list, there were 7,781 Mosquitos built with 6,710 being built during WWII. 516 were lost in WWII (7.7%) and another 20 were lost post-war.

Click to expand...

I did a quick calculation using a spreadsheet on 8thAF losses during WW2, which is by no means complete. It adds up to 1,901 B-17s lost. From a production of 12,731 (from Wiki) that works out to be 15%. That is not including B-17s lost by other commands in other theatres.

Of the post war losses of the Mosquito, one is LR503, which performed 213 missions before being sent back to Canada for a display tour. It crashed after hitting a flag pole atop a building.

F For Freddie - Calgary's VE Day Tragedy

A lot would depend on enemy air....if I had to fight my way out, Id probably want an air cooled fighter-the P47 and Corsair come to mind. If the enemy air cover was suppressed to a good degree, a gunned up B25 or A26 would get my vote. Liquid cooled engines are not a great idea for mud movers.

A Mark IID Hurricane of 6 Squadron at Shandur, Egypt with Vickers Class "S" 40 mm (1.57 in) guns and Vokes Sand Filter, 1942



RAF Hurricane Mark IV with Vickers Class "S" 40 mm (1.57 in) guns, 1943

Swastika in the Gunsight: Memoirs of a Russian Fighter Pilot, 1941-45

Soon, all of us (the army pilots, too) were ordered to assemble in one place. 'Ahead of us,' Dzyuba waved a pointer at the map, then at a large photo, 'is Gorodyets aireld. It is situated 25 kilometres south of Luga. As you see, there are Ju 88s on the airfield. They are refuelling. The photo was taken two hours ago. Evidently, the bombers recently flew in from somewhere. Your task is to destroy them on the airfield. At its northern end, twenty-five Me 109 fighters can be counted. Follow my orders — then they won't take off. From our airfield, make for Samro Lake, then to Gorodyets. In the area shaded red,' Col Dzyuba again raised his pointer, 'are partisans. In the event of a forced landing, come down here. . . .'

Having defined the duties of the leading group, Dzyuba gave the command, 'Go to it!' Eight Il 2 Stormoviks, eighteen Hurricanes, seven Kittyhawk fighters and one Pe 2 aircraft taking photographs rose into the air. Fifteen of the Hurricanes were armed with rockets. Cameras had been fitted in two of the fighters (Maj Myasnikov's and mine), in order to take pictures.

Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmoviks




Soviet P-40s

davebender said:

Most Metz forts were built during the 1890s. By 1944 every competent military intelligence officer in the world knew the roofs were made of reinforced concrete 2 1/2 meters thick.

Why would you attack such a target with bombs you know are too small for the job?

Click to expand...

Because you didn't have anything better available? I wonder if they could have developed an AP version of Bat or a 2000# version of AZON in time....

1944 USA had plenty of large bombs in production. If they weren't available to CAS units operating in France then U.S. Army Air Corps supply officers screwed up.