wuzak
Captain
Correct. That should have read only 10 B.IV series i.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
you miss series I
It would also mean the enemy would require many more interceptors.
Fun fact: if Little Boy had been fitted with a British style round tail rather than the US style box fins, it would have fitted inside the Mosquito bomb bay with bulged doors.
Figuratively speaking, but they wouldn't have known that they needed them.
I'm a bit lukewarm about the idea that the Mossie could have been used as a strategic bomber instead of resources being wasted on four engined heavies. Once its performance became known, every Command and Ally wanted the Mosquito, which means that if Bomber Command wanted more, it would have to get in line. The other thing was that it would have been a waste of resources for the British not to have built its four engined heavies and built more Mosquitoes instead - with everyone wanting them, the supply to Bomber Command might not have been able to have been sustainable. The question shouldn't be could the Mossie be used instead of the big heavy bombers, but should the Mossie be used...
Besides, it's worth remembering that only Britain and the United States were capable of building such a large fleet of big bombers and supporting them logistically and materially to the extent they did. Yes, other countries built four-engined bombers, but nowhere near in the same numbers as Britain and the USA. This might go some way in explaining how different countries defined 'heavy bombers'. To not build these bombers when the country could have would have been a waste. Even a fleet of Halifaxes and Stirlings, with all their faults was capable of putting a huge tonnage of bombs in a given area night after night. Strategic bombing of the kind that Britain and the USA conducted with its bombers required massive volumes of bombs all at once.
Maybe, but with Little Boy's all-up weight of over 9,000 lbs, take off would have been a dicey prospect!
I think that had the desire been for more Mosquitoes there would have a push for newer types with even more capabilities.
One more Betty attribute, it could bomb from as high as 23000', with normal single stage engines. But still highly flammable.No love for the Betty? It had a huge range and it could turn into a fireball like an anime character!
There was already a desire for more Mosquitoes as it was - the problem was there weren't enough to go round, which was my point - Bomber Command would have had to compete even if more were available than traditionally. As for newer types, developments of the Mosquito saw paper aircraft equipped with Napier Sabres, Griffons and even jet powered versions. de Havilland proposed the DH.101 with Sabres that was intended on being a heavy bomber variant and crewed by three people, but because of a lack of availability of the Sabre, Griffons would have to be fitted, but this offered little advance over the existing design and it was canned. The DH.102 was also to be larger than the existing Mosquito and powered by 60 series Merlins, but the existing Mosquito with such engines matched the DH.102's performance and load carrying capability and it was shelved.
The USAF reclassified the A-26 (attack) to B-26 (bomber).I would say the Douglas A-26 bomber was best all around in some ways. Incidentally ,if you remember, later in its life the Air Force, confusingly, renamed this the B-26. We had one of these at Raytheon in the 60's that had been converted (by On Mark Engineering) into an executive aircraft and it was great!
And then they starting using (P) for patrol, such as the Lockheed P2V Neptune of May 1945.The USAF reclassified the A-26 (attack) to B-26 (bomber).
Several if the USAAF designations were changed when the USAF became a seperate branch in '47 - most notably, the change from "pursuit" (P) to "fighter" (F) for example, F-51D, F-80 and so on.
The Lockheed B-34 used by the USN was designated PV and PV1 during the war. The PV2 had enough modification made that it carried over to a "2".And then they starting using (P) for patrol, such as the Lockheed P2V Neptune of May 1945.
I meant in terms of Mosquito type aircraft replacing heavy/heavier bombers.
One possible type in this vain was the Hawker P.1005, which was a handsome aircraft that relied on the Sabre engine. If an alternative engine could have been found it may have had more chance of going forward.
The P 1.005 is a British wonder weapon that should join the many German miracles that weren't built but had fantastic drawing board performance. It has a three man crew, twice the bomb load of the Mosquito, engines with a bigger frontal area and much higher consumption than a Mosquito but does everything better including being 40 MPH faster. Pure fantasy in my opinion.Ah, copy that wuzak, understand now.
The Hawker P.1005 was a contender for a potential fast bomber, but fell victim to that Mosquito magic, particularly with high altitude Merlins and it was predicted that it would not have offered any more than what the Mosquito could. That and the increase of resources devoted to the Typhoon killed it. The DH.101 was intended on being the heavy bomber version of the Mossie, but again, DH felt it was unjustified with the Mosquito's performance and load carrying capability being what it was. I can't forsee Harris having been too enamoured with the idea of replacing his heavy bombers with Mosquitoes, to be honest.
What was the A-26 like compared to the B-25 and the B-26?
Faster, bigger bomb load, more maneuverable than either of those. Built as an attack plane, it benefitted from the gunship experience we gained with the earlier models.
It appeared in numbers (767 total) in the last year of the war ... by that time the work had been done by others, who deserve the fame.Ki-67 Hiryu... Way better than the B-25 or B-26 in almost every way... Almost as versatile as the Mosquito... I am surprised it didn't even make the list...
The trainable guns (dome, belly, nose) can engage in suppression from beyond 1200 yards. After the drop the plane can bank and engage with all guns. If the gyros are "settable" then the torp can be dropped pointing at the target (meaning all guns suppressing from beyond 1200 yards) and the torp will turn to align with the gyros thereby pointing at the place the ship will be in when the torp gets there. Subs had to do this, so sub-launched torps had to do this, I don't know about air-drop torps.torpedo bombers cannot act as their own AA suppression aircraft.
It is simply geometry. If the torpedo bomber with a 40kt torpedo is attacking a 20kt ship and drops from 1200 yds away, Fixed guns have no hope of hitting the target ship before the torpedo is dropped.
Merchant ships are as important a target as naval vessels, and many did "maru" the day the Mitchel dropped by.Why isn't the Pe-2 on the list?
And how is a B-25 carrying a torpedo and a dozen 50's going to suppress flak before it gets near the ship?
Typical AA cannon ranges are well beyond the effective range of a .50MG and well within the torpedo release point.
Not really, The mock up/s were inspected in April of 1941, early June saw contracts placed for a 3 seat glass nose attack bomber prototype and a 2 seat solid nose night fighter prototype.
Late June of 1941 saw a 3rd plane added to the contract, a 3 seat solid nose ground attack plane with a 75mm cannon. The Army bounced back and forth between the 75mm cannon, two 37mm cannon and and all machinegun nose armament.
While field experience may have helped decide on the all machinegun option the idea of using it as a straffer was well entrenched before any of the B-25s or B-26s were modified into gunships. The Army initially wanted all 500 of the initial order to mount the 75mm cannon, perhaps field experience helped change their minds?