Mosquito trial - what is it being tested?
- Thread starter WATU
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #2
Found a bit more but it is still obscure. It is an "apparatus". A wooden box container is on the inside on the starboard side just forward of the fuselage door. It contains five "stores" and the trial is to check they are released satisfactorily in level flight and on pull-out from a shallow dive. They are released electronically as a solenoid is mentioned and a switch next to the navigator. Illuminants?
Accident de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito PR Mk I W4054, 28 Mar 1943
Mosquito W4054: Took off at 10:50hrs for PR mission to Tronheim. 28/03/1943 At 13:20hrs the Mosquito was shot down by the Bf 109 of Ofw Theo Stebner from 10./JG 5, who attacked W4054 twi...
aviation-safety.net
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
The 'Gee' Type H or Gee-H began trials around that time - but I have no idea if that is what the memo refers to.
- Thread starter
- #6
Thanks but does not fit the description. Gee did not have droppable stores. Puzzling.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Here you go, I tried a bunch of different permutations of the "A.D. Type H" from your first post and "apparatus" from your later post and found this link for "Type H, A.D. Apparatus Mk II (Service)":
"OP 1665 - British Ordnance; Part1 - Aircraft Bombs and Pyrotechnics; Chapter 16 - Miscellaneous Bombs: Type H, A.D. Apparatus Mk II (Service)"
"OP 1665 - British Ordnance; Part1 - Aircraft Bombs and Pyrotechnics; Chapter 16 - Miscellaneous Bombs: Type H, A.D. Apparatus Mk II (Service)"
- Thread starter
- #8
Well done. That is it. Not come across that before. Any thoughts on how widely deployed it was and if it was used successfully on operations? Thanks.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Here is one link re the British "Long Aerial Mine" system, which may not be exactly the same as the one you are looking into, but I suspect it may just be a repurposing of the system.
"World War II - Churchill's Aerial Mines Project"
"World War II - Churchill's Aerial Mines Project"
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Here is another link, for related systems 'Apparatus A.D., Types B,D,J,L' and for 'Bombs, AAD No.2 & 8'. The 'Apparatus A.D., Type B' with 'Bomb, A.A.D. No.2' looks like it could be used as an aircraft released type. The other Apparatus Types appear to be designed as ground launched rocket payloads only?
"Apparatus AD Type B Mk 1"
I think some of these were used with the U.P. (Unrotated Projectile) mounts that were used for low-level antiaircraft purposes on some RN ships and as shore-based systems.
"Unrotated Projectile - Wikipedia"
"Apparatus AD Type B Mk 1"
I think some of these were used with the U.P. (Unrotated Projectile) mounts that were used for low-level antiaircraft purposes on some RN ships and as shore-based systems.
"Unrotated Projectile - Wikipedia"
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #11
They all use related technology so were likely part of a family from the same development team. Or at least RAF and Admiralty teams that swapped notes. I knew about the ship ones (more my area of interest) but was surprised to find that a Mossie was equipped with something that feels a bit gimmicky to me. Still curious about how widely deployed it was and whether it was deemed to have value.
I seem to recollect the soviets used something very similar on the IL2s....
I've found the following -
"Another weapon was the DAG-10 grenade launcher, an odd "aerial-mine" device that would eject grenades on little parachutes in the path of a pursuer and which, surprisingly, Soviet records say was very effective"
I'm not having much luck finding pictures or further detail, but it seems this system is widely referred to on the www
TBH, for a less manoeuvrable or slower aircraft subject to a tail-chase, I would imagine such a system would be a lot better than nothing. After-all, Fulmar back-seaters were reduced to bunging packs of rubber banded Izal toilet paper out in the slipstream to confuse aircraft on their 6, and if that was deemed worthwhile enough, something that went bang and which could take a wing off had surely got to be a better idea (at least in concept!)
"As the war went on, several changes were made both to the Il-2 itself as well as the tactics used with the aircraft. In early 1943, a variant of the Il-2M3 was produced with the 23mm cannon replaced with two 37mm NS-37; the recoil caused by the cannons however affected the aircraft's handling. Later, the Il-2M3 was outfitted be able to carry 192 PTAB anti-tank bomblets, small hollow-charge explosives designed to be dropped over large groups of armor. Perhaps most incredible was the installation of a DAG-10 grenade launcher, which was intended to fire grenades suspended by drogue chutes- the intention was that the grenades would float into the path of pursuing fighters"
Tools of War: The Il-2 Shturmovik — The Military Historian
During the Second World War, the Western Allies chose to place a focus on heavy strategic bombers. The Soviet Union chose to pursue a different path, placing an emphasis on attack aircraft. The Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik became not only the most prolific example of this type of aircraft, it became the
military-historian.squarespace.com
- Thread starter
- #14
Perhaps not really, both are parachute mines designed to destroy/deter an aircraft which runs into an aerial minefield. The design objective would appear pretty much the same to me?
Despite being fired, I've seen nothing to far to suggest that the DAG-10 was 'aimed'. If anything, to me, it sounds potentially more useful as any launch charge could be used to propel the mine on an upwards trajectory, rather than simply being dropped under gravity. In the case of a Mosquito, one would imagine that most intercepting aircraft are unlikely to have much of a speed advantage and would be using any height advantage to dive down onto its tail. The Mosquito equivalent is clearly only ever going to start out at the same altitude as the aircraft and will be dropping from the moment the lever is pulled. Does that possibly indicate it was intended to be used as an offensive weapon to be dropped into the path of a bomber stream?
Mind you ('mined' you?) - as has been pointed out by others, despite the soviet propaganda claims to the contrary, I don't think anyone has managed to find any contemporary Luftwaffe reports regarding DAG-10s being deployed, which suggests they were either rarely deployed, useless (or 100% efficient!)
- Thread starter
- #16
Yup, quite agree. The design objective looks the same but a different deployment so it feels like a quite separate design to solve the same problem. However that is based on roughly zero hard information, just my sense of the two. The archive paper I attached at the start mentioned trials with the Mark XIV bombsight but I think that is just coincidence and that joint trials were to be carried out on the two separately. Or... ??
Its an interesting thought. I wonder what the design specification for the mine dispenser was - if we could winkle that out, it would probably answer the question properly. I guess that later mark bombsites *might* have application as an aiming device. Afterall, they can compensate for wind drift (critical for anything suspended from a parachute) and would allow a bomb aimer to allow for altitude etc. Whether there were mechanical 'hacks' to allow the Mark XIV to adjust for an aerial target with an overtake speed of only 50mph or so and a munition with low a descent rate , I've no idea. But I guess its not impossible. The jpeg report you've posted certainly seems to suggest that the bombsite was not coincidental to the trials.
The following taken from Wikipedia might help with some context on the RAFs interest in aerial mines and air-to-air bombing:
"The Harrow also served in a novel operational role at the height of The Blitz against Britain in the winter of 1940–1941. Six Harrows equipped 420 Flight (later 93 Squadron) which used lone Harrows to tow Long Aerial Mines (LAM) into the path of German bombers.[18][19] The LAM had an explosive charge on the end of a long cable and the unorthodox tactic was credited with the destruction of between four and six German bombers.[11][18] The experiment was judged of poor value and the planned deployment of Douglas Havocs in the LAM role was cancelled.[20]"
Now, personally speaking, if a semi-obsolete aircraft of such low performance as a Harrow could be used to destroy between four and six bombers with an experimental weapon, I'm not so sure it was *that* poor value - though it would seem to me that A) - potentially littering your countryside with unexploded munitions might not be a good idea - and B) using a method like this requires a bomber stream and a reasonable number of targets in a given area to have a good chance of success. The end of large scale night raids would render the whole concept pretty pointless I'd imagine.
All rather fascinating!
- Thread starter
- #18
The Mk XIV bombsight had trouble with low terminal velocity munitions such as 4lb incendiaries. That was solved by the initial drop being in a bomb-sized container with a normal TV which then dispensed the individual bombs closer to the ground. It would have had a nightmare with munitions on a parachute. I still think they were just using the same aircraft at A&AEE for separate tests.
I have since read that the device had been previously trialled on bombers and that part of the Mossie test was to see how it behaved at higher release speeds. I wonder if it could have been aimed at night fighters who would often close in from below and behind?
I suspect the Harrow trials had a flaw somewhere otherwise surely it would have been deployed? There is no mention of the A.D. Type H having a tow wire. It just sounds like it was released to proceed with the wind and gravity.
I have since read that the device had been previously trialled on bombers and that part of the Mossie test was to see how it behaved at higher release speeds. I wonder if it could have been aimed at night fighters who would often close in from below and behind?
I suspect the Harrow trials had a flaw somewhere otherwise surely it would have been deployed? There is no mention of the A.D. Type H having a tow wire. It just sounds like it was released to proceed with the wind and gravity.
- Thread starter
- #19
The LAM didn't have a tow-wire either. In fact - if this citation is accurate - it sounds like a large version of your AD type H -
https://www.jeversteamlaundry.org/93squadhistory2.htm
"following much experimentation, the optimum configuration for the mine was determined.
The resulting weapon fitted into a cylindrical container 14in long and 7in in diameter,
and weighed 141b. After release from the aircraft the obstacle deployed.
It comprised, from top to bottom: a supporting parachute, a length of shock-absorber
cord, the cylindrical container, an AAD bomb, 2,000ft of piano wire and, at the bottom,
a second furled parachute.
When an aircraft struck the piano wire the shock wave ran up the wire, causing a weak
link to break, releasing the main supporting parachute and the cylindrical container.
As the container fell away the bomb was armed and a small stabilising parachute
connected to the weapon was released. Simultaneously, the shockwave travelled down
the piano wire and caused the lower parachute to open. This took up a position
behind the aircraft and pulled the bomb smartly down on the aircraft."
