Me-110 Underrated

[Dimlee]

(as just one example, the factory making the original version of the Yak-3 was destroyed delaying that project by a couple of years, which is a small but fairly substantial Axis Strategic victory I would say).

Sorry, it's just me nitpicking as usual.
This is probably about the factory 292 in Saratov which was destroyed in June 1943 during the operation Carmen II.
Since the first Yak-1M(future Yak-3) prototype rolled out in February 1943 and the factory managed to restore its pre-bombing output rate in October, we can assume that Yak-3 program was delayed by 4 months at least. There was also Tbilisi factory but I don't know if that one was involved in 1943.
Nevertheless, your example is very good and valid since those bombing raids in May-June 1943 have done considerable damage to the Soviet industry and logistics. Real strategic victory for Luftwaffe, indeed.

 

[Shortround6]

Mosquitoes could carry a fairly heavy bomb load out to a good range with an internal bomb load, up to 4,000 lbs 3,000 miles

Not until 1944 which makes any talk of what the British or Americans should have done in 1942 rather pointless. Yes the Mosquito was amazing but lets remember that in 1941 they built 12 bombers, 9 fighters and a few recon planes, in 1942 they built 131 Mosquito bombers, 297 fighters and a few more recon planes. the Mosquito did not come into it's own until 1943.

Ju 88 could carry a 2000 lb bomb load internally roughly 1,000 miles, external stores limited the range more

when? A-2 was good for 620 miles at 217mph unless they put a fuel tank in the bomb bay. You want the 1000 mile range the interanl bomb laod was ten 50 kg bombs.

The DB-7 / A-20 could carry a 1000 lb load internally about 900 miles

DB-7s had P & W R-1830 engines (DB-7As got the big engines) All A-20s got the big engine, Fuel capacities ranged from 325 gallons to 725 gal while still leaving the lower bomb bay free.
Gross weight went from about 15,000lbs to just under 27,000lbs.

We do have to be specific as to exactly which model of the plane in question we are referring to.

 

[Schweik]

Not until 1944 which makes any talk of what the British or Americans should have done in 1942 rather pointless. Yes the Mosquito was amazing but lets remember that in 1941 they built 12 bombers, 9 fighters and a few recon planes, in 1942 they built 131 Mosquito bombers, 297 fighters and a few more recon planes. the Mosquito did not come into it's own until 1943.

I show the first bomber variant, the Mosquito Mk IV (operational late 1941) as having a 1,100 mile 'normal' range with a 4,000 lb bomb load and a maximum range of ~2,000 miles with an (unspecified) lighter load. And presumably at quite a nice clip in terms of cruise speed, as well as a good (pretty high) altitude. So assuming that is correct it exceeds both the 1,000 mile benchmark and 1,000 bomb load considerably.

Admittedly not in time for the BoB but that was not my limitation.

when? A-2 was good for 620 miles at 217mph unless they put a fuel tank in the bomb bay. You want the 1000 mile range the interanl bomb laod was ten 50 kg bombs.

I think you are muddying the waters a bit here. The A-5 was flying in 1938, came off the assembly line in June of 1940, and did fly in the Battle of Britain. The A-5 had the bigger wing and a longer range. My sources say 1,500 miles. Did they have enough of them for the BoB? Perhaps not. But that is besides the point. We are talking about design capabilities here, not the actual history of the war which are all pretty familiar with.

Maximum bomb load for the Ju 88 was actually over 6,000 lbs but more typically they carried about 3,300 lbs. And clearly A-5s were flying quite long missions routinely from the operational history in the MTO, for example Crete to Malta.

Longer range and Operational strikes tend to be a little less well defended and more vulnerable than either Tactical or major Strategic targets. A lot of time it's a matter of opportunity like spotting a train or a merchant ship heading to it's destination. For targets like these, or for airfields or radar stations etc., a few medium sized bombs can do real damage. Ports are often vulnerable too especially those not so close to the enemy.

The big dividing line in terms of long range for bombers is basically how big was the internal bomb bay. But already in 1940 we had several bomber types around the world which did have both long range and a reasonable internal bomb carrying capability. So in my opinion, the notion that there weren't any bombers which could do long range strikes is bollocks.

 

[Schweik]

Sorry, it's just me nitpicking as usual.
This is probably about the factory 292 in Saratov which was destroyed in June 1943 during the operation Carmen II.
Since the first Yak-1M(future Yak-3) prototype rolled out in February 1943 and the factory managed to restore its pre-bombing output rate in October, we can assume that Yak-3 program was delayed by 4 months at least. There was also Tbilisi factory but I don't know if that one was involved in 1943.
Nevertheless, your example is very good and valid since those bombing raids in May-June 1943 have done considerable damage to the Soviet industry and logistics. Real strategic victory for Luftwaffe, indeed.

Ok, pardon my error, I was going from memory and didn't double check the dates. How about bombing raids in 1941 and 1942? Were those not damaging to Soviet industry and logistics?

 

[pbehn]

I show the first bomber variant, the Mosquito Mk IV (operational late 1941) as having a 1,100 mile 'normal' range with a 4,000 lb bomb load and a maximum range of ~2,000 miles with an (unspecified) lighter load. And presumably at quite a nice clip in terms of cruise speed, as well as a good (pretty high) altitude. So assuming that is correct it exceeds both the 1,000 mile benchmark and 1,000 bomb load considerably.

Admittedly not in time for the BoB but that was not my limitation.
.

You need a Mosquito with modified bomb bay and two speed two stage engines, the 4,000 cookie was for blowing off rooves.
from the Mossie.org site


B.IX Bomber. First high altitude unarmed bomber. Merlin 72 intercooled engines with two speed, two stage superchargers. Capacity for four 500lb bombs in the fuselage and two 500lb bombs on the wings or extra fuselage fuel tanks and 50 gallon jettisonable wing tanks. A few were converted to take one 4000lb bomb in the fuselage with two 50 gallon jettisonable wing tanks which were later in 1944 replaced by 100 gallon jettisonable wing tanks subject to a weight limitation of 25,200lb. A Pathfinder version was developed by the RAF.

 

[Schweik]

I don't think you need a 4,000 lb cookie (or two stage superchargers) for the Mosquito to be an effective bomber. Obviously aircraft got more formidable as the war went on, but a Mosquito IV or a Ju-88 A-5 were quite capable of doing serious damage to the enemy.

My understanding that the expanded bomb bay for the 'cookie' bomb was due to the size of the bomb, the earlier variants could already carry a substantial bomb load including (but not only) in their internal bomb bay.

 

[pbehn]

I don't think you need a 4,000 lb cookie (or two stage superchargers) for the Mosquito to be an effective bomber. Obviously aircraft got more formidable as the war went on, but a Mosquito IV or a Ju-88 A-5 were quite capable of doing serious damage to the enemy.

My understanding that the expanded bomb bay for the 'cookie' bomb was due to the size of the bomb, the earlier variants could already carry a substantial bomb load including (but not only) in their internal bomb bay.

If the 2,000 lb bomb load of a Mosquito was capable of serious damage, what were the B-17, B-24, Lancaster Halifax and Stirling all about?

 

[tomo pauk]

I questioned that it would improve the prospects of the LW in 1940. A raid by He 111s and Ju88s on Manchester escorted by Bf110s isn't going to go well in daylight

Bf 110s can't provide the numbers needed, LW needs an 1-engined fighter powered by DB 601A, with ~500L + 300L (600l?) in drop tanks.

There's more to strategic capability than just reach. You actually have to deliver effects once you get there. What bomb load could any of the bombers carry out to 1,000 miles? According to Wikipedia (yes, I know, but it's all I have to hand at the moment), the Do17 had a combat radius of 628 miles with 1,100 lb bomb load. Extending that range would require a reduction in bomb load...and 1,100 lbs is a very long way from being a strategic load. It certainly isn't going to deliver a strategic effect.

Combat radius is not range. The 1450 mile range (as in early Zeros) works to perhaps 500 miles of combat radius for a ww2 fighter, and perhaps a bit more for a bomber. He 111H-4 (BoB vintage) was capable for 2000-2500 km range with 2x1000 kg of external bombs.

 

[Shortround6]

I show the first bomber variant, the Mosquito Mk IV (operational late 1941) as having a 1,100 mile 'normal' range with a 4,000 lb bomb load and a maximum range of ~2,000 miles with an (unspecified) lighter load. And presumably at quite a nice clip in terms of cruise speed, as well as a good (pretty high) altitude. So assuming that is correct it exceeds both the 1,000 mile benchmark and 1,000 bomb load considerably.

Admittedly not in time for the BoB but that was not my limitation.

Please check your sources, I don't care about Mosquitos and the Bob but I do care about other arguments where people claim the Mosquito could have replaced the B-17.
The first 10(?) Mosquito bombers were rated at a 1000lb bomb load (four 250lb bombs) as they had not yet shortened the tail fins on the 500lb bombs to fit the bomb bay.
No Mosquito carried 4000lbs until they carried the 4000lb cookie and they needed to bulge the bombay doors to do that. They did go to 3000lbs fairly quickly, Four of the shortened 500lb bombs in the bomb bay and one under each wing.
Going operational is also subject to question. This goes for many planes. First issued to an "operational" squadron or first used in combat/dropped bomb on the enemy?

First combat use of the Mosquito bomber may have been the day after the 1000lb raid on Cologne, June 1st 1942?

I think you are muddying the waters a bit here. The A-5 was flying in 1938, came off the assembly line in June of 1940, and did fly in the Battle of Britain. The A-5 had the bigger wing and a longer range. My sources say 1,500 miles. Did they have enough of them for the BoB? Perhaps not. But that is besides the point. We are talking about design capabilities here, not the actual history of the war which are all pretty familiar with.

Maximum bomb load for the Ju 88 was actually over 6,000 lbs but more typically they carried about 3,300 lbs. And clearly A-5s were flying quite long missions routinely from the operational history in the MTO, for example Crete to Malta.

Trying to de-muddy the waters. The JU-88A-5 was an interim model built when the engines promised for the A-4 either didn't show up in time or showed up in insufficient numbers.
JU-88s have more than the usual German combinations of fuel tanks and bomb racks. Standard JU-88 bomb bay held eighteen 50kg bombs in the forward bay and 10 in the aft bay.
A 268imp gallon tank could be mounted in the forward bay of both the early Planes and the A-4/5. apparently a 249 gal (?) tank could be mounted in the aft bay of the A-4/5 for a total of 886 imp gallons. I will leave it to others to sort out the range with bombs if both bomb bays are full or what the bomb load might be if you are already carrying almost 6400 pounds of fuel. Or perhaps the extra fuel that I think was in the rear bay was in drop tanks? In any case the ability of the JU-88 to carry a large bomb load over long ranges(or even medium) is highly suspect.

Longer range and Operational strikes tend to be a little less well defended and more vulnerable than either Tactical or major Strategic targets. A lot of time it's a matter of opportunity like spotting a train or a merchant ship heading to it's destination. For targets like these, or for airfields or radar stations etc., a few medium sized bombs can do real damage. Ports are often vulnerable too especially those not so close to the enemy.

The big dividing line in terms of long range for bombers is basically how big was the internal bomb bay. But already in 1940 we had several bomber types around the world which did have both long range and a reasonable internal bomb carrying capability. So in my opinion, the notion that there weren't any bombers which could do long range strikes is bollocks.

In 1940 one of the better long range bombers was the Whitley as evidenced by it's strike against Genoa Italy, Unfortunately the Whitley was so slow that several hours of the trip (beginning and possibly the end) had to be flown in day light so it was not a distance that was practical on a regular basis.

But the problem is not bombers flying long ranges, that was easy, it was getting fighters to go with them using the engines and fuel/s of the day. This while meeting the structural strength standards of the country buying them.

 

[pbehn]

Bf 110s can't provide the numbers needed, LW needs an 1-engined fighter powered by DB 601A, with ~500L + 300L (600l?) in drop tanks.

.

I sort of agree but most of all they needed a plan, that was planned a long time before the fall of France. Germany didn't have the stuff needed to either bomb the UK into submission or invade because as far as I can see they never thought about either until early 1940.

 

[pbehn]

When discussing the successes of the Mosquito also discuss the losses. The famous raid on Goerings radio transmission was by two flights of three aircraft. The first got in and out the second had one shot down that is a loss rate of 33% or 16.5%. Not sustainable at all.

 

[GrauGeist]

Not sure why the Mosquito's max. load keeps getting compared to a B-17's. Two different types with two different mission profiles.

The B-17 typically carried 8,000 pounds of bombs on missions about 500 miles or less and carried 4,500 pounds of bombs on missions of 800 miles. It could also carry much more if the mission was short range.

Yes, the Mosquito could carry a 4,000 bomb, the B-17 could carry two.
The P-47 and Typhoon could carry over 2,000 pounds of bombs AND fight their way out of a bad situation - so it would seem that the P-47 is more value-packed and two Thunderbolts could do the job of one Mosquito then, right?

 

[Milosh]

Not sure why the Mosquito's max. load keeps getting compared to a B-17's. Two different types with two different mission profiles.

The B-17 typically carried 8,000 pounds of bombs on missions about 500 miles or less and carried 4,500 pounds of bombs on missions of 800 miles. It could also carry much more if the mission was short range.

Yes, the Mosquito could carry a 4,000 bomb, the B-17 could carry two.
The P-47 and Typhoon could carry over 2,000 pounds of bombs AND fight their way out of a bad situation - so it would seem that the P-47 is more value-packed and two Thunderbolts could do the job of one Mosquito then, right?

But could the P-47 carry that load as far as a Mossie?

 

[Shortround6]

The Mossie was a wonderful airplane.

However this 4000lb nonsense in regards to the B-17 comes from a General talking to a war correspondent and telling her that a Mosquito could carry the the same bomb load to Belrin as the B-17. That was published and has stuck ever since. But the Mossie didn't carry the 4000lb bomb until some point in 1944. and the average bomb load of the B-17 was 4000lbs only if you average the weight of a HE load (5000lbs) with the weight of an incendiary load ( much closer to 3000lbs). Mossies rarely carried incendiaries. You couldn't fit very many in the bomb bay.
There were only two squadrons using Mossies as day bombers in 1942, and one of them didn't start operations until the fall.

 

[Schweik]

Nobody should have been carrying incendiaries to bomb cities. The problem with all the heavy bombers is that they barely hit anything they were supposed to or anything of any military value. Mosquitoes as bombers had the extra advantage of being much more precise. I also think their overall loss rate in the war compares pretty well to a lot of other bomber types. Of course on extremely fraught precision missions like hitting gestapo headquarters or prisons losses are going to be a little higher.

 

[wuzak]

Also worth pointing out, despite that lower critical altitude A6M2's didn't have a tough time against Spit V's over Darwin. We know there were many extenuating circumstances, but I think it's a safe bet that an A6M2 was competitive with a Spit I.

The Spitfire I had one big advantage over the A6M2 in 1940.


Availability.

 

[wuzak]

Mosquitoes could carry a fairly heavy bomb load out to a good range with an internal bomb load, up to 4,000 lbs 3,000 miles

Any Mosquito flying 3,000 miles would have a bomb bay full of auxiliary fuel tanks and 0 bombs.

 

[pbehn]

Nobody should have been carrying incendiaries to bomb cities. The problem with all the heavy bombers is that they barely hit anything they were supposed to or anything of any military value. Mosquitoes as bombers had the extra advantage of being much more precise. I also think their overall loss rate in the war compares pretty well to a lot of other bomber types. Of course on extremely fraught precision missions like hitting gestapo headquarters or prisons losses are going to be a little higher.

They frequently hit what they were supposed to that's why Germanys cities and industries were destroyed and they had no oil and precious few aircraft.

 

[pbehn]

Any Mosquito flying 3,000 miles would have a bomb bay full of auxiliary fuel tanks and 0 bombs.

True, but a round trip of 3,000 miles takes you to N Africa.

 

[Schweik]

The Spitfire I had one big advantage over the A6M2 in 1940.


Availability.

I'll just leave this here.