Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I don't think so. The original spec and illustration ThomasP posted shows that this is clearly an aerial mine designed to intercept the wing of an aircraft and then detonate a charge.Mossie 4054 was one of three prototype PR1's. That nudges it towards being an illuminant maybe?
AAD | Apparatus, Air Defence part of the Long Aerial Mine project in WWII. |
Quite right, forgot about that post!I don't think so. The original spec and illustration ThomasP posted shows that this is clearly an aerial mine designed to intercept the wing of an aircraft and then detonate a charge.
View attachment 720353
I think that collectively nails what it was. Was it of use on operations? Any evidence for that?In fact, I think we're getting somewhere. What you are looking at it a variant of the LAM mine. Note the definition of 'AD' according to the glossary provide on the jeversteamlaundry site -
AAD Apparatus, Air Defence part of the Long Aerial Mine project in WWII.
A PR mosquito would make a perfectly useful testbed I'd guess. Especially if you wanted to test release from faster aircraft than Harrows or Wellingtons - and with potential utility as a lightweight defence against pursuit.
I can't find any evidence so far that it was used operationally by any others than the Harrow squadron;I think that collectively nails what it was. Was it of use on operations? Any evidence for that?
I know - regarding the Harrow claims, thats the same conclusion I drew! Its a fantastic return for an experimental weapon deployed in a low performance aircraft and only in small numbers.Six German bombers destroyed in what looks like a limited trial sounds like an outstanding outcome. So why not deploy it? I wonder how strong the evidence was for the losses? Six German bombers crashed on British soil with wire still wrapped round? As you say there must be more in the archives. It ought to lend itself to OR spatial modelling in use against streams or other formations. Definitely more suited to dense formations and the effect of causing them to alter course would be a challenge for pilots. Interesting that the primary aim was to break up formations. That would mean it would have to be very visible. Add a light at night? Lots of questions.
We only know for certain that the LAM wasn't deployed *despite* those results. Its an intriguing question as to why. This is my list of suppositions as to the probable reasons:The collateral damage point is fair but has to weighed against what six bombers might do. Surely the odd accident would be acceptable as a quid pro quo? Plus the ground was being (relatively) littered with unexploded ordnance so that concept would have been normal at the time and not the shock that it would be in the UK now.
I am not really convinced that radar would change things. Radar provides information that allows the defence to optimise its defences which could include fighters and LAM-equipped aircraft. If LAM was practical then a mix depending on circumstances would seem attractive. Especially if LAM could be deployed by relatively second line aircraft so that they were additional to the fighter effort.
If you're interested in wired parachute mines, you might also be interested in the Z-Battery concept which was used operationally in the ground to air capacity - Z Battery - WikipediaWell-argued.
Lack of adequate mass targets makes sense and was likely the driving factor. Yet, as you say, that type of target should have made it very attractive to the Germans later on. I wonder if they tried a version? They would have been aware of Allied weapons of that style and they loved a gimmick.
I was a bit blase on the unexploded devices on friendly ground. Could be limited to over the sea but strong winds could still make that erratic. Wind generally would have been a limiting factor.
Radar - I was only thinking of ground-controlled rather than AI. A ground air defence control could allocate fighters or LAM aircraft subject to the nature and timing of the threat. Actually that counts against lower performance aircraft being used for LAM as their rate of climb wold be poor and they would need more time to get to a workable altitude.
I wonder why the Mossie PR prototype was used in the trial? That would not have gone near enemy formations and would have only been chased by individual interceptors. Dropping a device for a following fighter to run into sounds good but a cross wind would have made the probability of a hit low I feel.
I'll keep an eye open for wire mines generally. I don't think the ship rocket ones were well-regarded although as a pilot I would have expected they would be very unwelcome. Maybe one of those weapons that did not kill things but did degrade bombing accuracy by causing the bombers to manoeuvre making it hard to assess the value.
My Dad would have met W4054 in Vaenga - Russia in early Sept 1942. I suspect his team would have been called in to at least pre- flight it for the return to UK. His team would have no specific knowledge/training on a new/secret type. They did have a PRU Spitfire operating on their field, tracking over the Tirpitz. Miserable quality imageHi
Just wondered if anyone knows what "A.D. Type H in Mosquito" refers to. It was a trial in June 1942. Is it just part of the fuel/oil trials or something additional? See attached for extract from UK National Archives file. Thanks