Dogwalker
Senior Airman
Yeah, he managed to produce about 50 aircrafts affecterd by plywood delamination problems.
Mosquito vs The Rest
- Thread starter stona
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
DonL
Banned
This is a myth and has nothing to do with the reality. The Ta 154 had no structural problems, weather with the wood nor with the glue!
Source:
Focke-Wulf Nachtjäger Ta 154 "Moskito": Entwicklung, Produktion und Truppenerprobung: Amazon.de: Dietmar Hermann: Bücher
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
You are right, Birch or douglas fir stringers were used in the production models. But were they interchangeable in the prototype?
I still wonder why would anyone build wooden aircraft - with all its inherent disadvantages (with mass-production, durability, sensitiveness to weather) that ultimately outweighed advantages - instead of stressed skin aircraft, unless there was a shortage of aluminium (and there wasn't). The Russians for one built virtually all of their fighters largely of wood (and being very good at that), but all their post war models of the same fighters switched to stressed skin construction.
In fact the first 210A-0 was in operational trial with Erprobungsgruppe 210 in 1940, probably before the Mosquito prototype was even flown (Nov 1940). The pre-production of Me 210 was in series production of 94 five months after (in April 1941) and two months before the first series of Mosquitos were even order by the British Air Ministry. It was bugged plane, sure, but it was there.
Indulge us in the details of this so called "entering service" of the Mosquito. Which Squadrons received it and how many being operationally ready. How many sorties were flown.
The intial Air Ministry order of June 1941 was 19 photo-reconnaissance models and 176 fighters. Further 50 unspecified, which after much hesitation were decided to be bomber versions at last. The PR aircraft had no guns or bombs, the fighter aircraft were incapable of carrying any bombs. The Me 210 at least could do both already. Later FB Mosquitos could carry two tiny bombs internally (250 pounders) but all the rest had to be carried externally, with a loss in performance. The 210/410 could carry a bit more and larger ones, and all of them inside the aircraft (compared to the FB version).
The first fighter Mossie could no more than about 360 mph, which was good, but not outstanding, merely a couple of miles faster than ME 110 or 210. They were of course much slower than RAF or LW s-e frontline fighters, and happless against them in air combat.
There were no bomber Mosquitoes in service until the end of 1941. In fact, the bomber prototype did not flew until September 1941, after it was decided to build a whole TEN of them in the first series. They did not flew a single operational mission until mid - 1942. Checking the details I have found that Bomber Commands Mosquitoes dropped ZERO tons of bombs in 1941. They received a SINGLE Mosquito first, W4064 in November 1941, but spent the next six monts "working up" what were essentially custom build pre-production planes and probably issued very, very slowly to operational units. They did not fly operational missions until May 1942, and they dropped something like 250 tons of bombs in the whole year, which was again marginal impact at best.
In any case, whether you would pick a Mosquito or a Me 210 in 1941, you would have to pick between a bugged aircraft in numbers, or a handful of aircraft that cannot do much yet, and, for such a capable light bomber, it cannot carry any bombs at all.
The major difference between them that the 210/410 could do all that but all could be done with the SAME aircraft. Not different Marks of bombers, fighters and so on, built as such at the factory and staying as such. The Mosquito was a very adaptable airframe in the same sense as the Ju 88 - many different variants could be developed. The 210/410 was a true multirole aircraft. One can argue how practical that was in practice, but that's still a plus for it.
In fact the first 210A-0 was in operational trial with Erprobungsgruppe 210 in 1940, probably before the Mosquito prototype was even flown (Nov 1940). The pre-production of Me 210 was in series production of 94 five months after (in April 1941) and two months before the first series of Mosquitos were even order by the British Air Ministry. It was bugged plane, sure, but it was there.
Indulge us in the details of this so called "entering service" of the Mosquito. Which Squadrons received it and how many being operationally ready. How many sorties were flown.
The intial Air Ministry order of June 1941 was 19 photo-reconnaissance models and 176 fighters. Further 50 unspecified, which after much hesitation were decided to be bomber versions at last. The PR aircraft had no guns or bombs, the fighter aircraft were incapable of carrying any bombs. The Me 210 at least could do both already. Later FB Mosquitos could carry two tiny bombs internally (250 pounders) but all the rest had to be carried externally, with a loss in performance. The 210/410 could carry a bit more and larger ones, and all of them inside the aircraft (compared to the FB version).
The first fighter Mossie could no more than about 360 mph, which was good, but not outstanding, merely a couple of miles faster than ME 110 or 210. They were of course much slower than RAF or LW s-e frontline fighters, and happless against them in air combat.
There were no bomber Mosquitoes in service until the end of 1941. In fact, the bomber prototype did not flew until September 1941, after it was decided to build a whole TEN of them in the first series. They did not flew a single operational mission until mid - 1942. Checking the details I have found that Bomber Commands Mosquitoes dropped ZERO tons of bombs in 1941. They received a SINGLE Mosquito first, W4064 in November 1941, but spent the next six monts "working up" what were essentially custom build pre-production planes and probably issued very, very slowly to operational units. They did not fly operational missions until May 1942, and they dropped something like 250 tons of bombs in the whole year, which was again marginal impact at best.
In any case, whether you would pick a Mosquito or a Me 210 in 1941, you would have to pick between a bugged aircraft in numbers, or a handful of aircraft that cannot do much yet, and, for such a capable light bomber, it cannot carry any bombs at all.
The major difference between them that the 210/410 could do all that but all could be done with the SAME aircraft. Not different Marks of bombers, fighters and so on, built as such at the factory and staying as such. The Mosquito was a very adaptable airframe in the same sense as the Ju 88 - many different variants could be developed. The 210/410 was a true multirole aircraft. One can argue how practical that was in practice, but that's still a plus for it.
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
The Air Ministry kept changing their minds. They were not sold on teh whole concept of unarmed bombers.
No, and nor did it need them. It was to do photo reconnaissance. Carrying cameras was all it needed to do.
PR Spitfires also carried no guns or bombs.
The fighter aircraft weren't required to carry bombs - so they weren't equipped to do so.
But, it was entirely feasible. The FB.VI used the same gun armament as the F.II, but had the rear bomb bay set up to accept bombs.
The FB.VI could carry 2 x 500lb bombs internally plus 2 x 500lb bombs under the wing. Much the same as the 210/410.
The first ones yes. That performance improved quickly - with ejector exhausts speed in fighter versions went up to about 370mph. 2 stage engines took them to higher speeds still - the NF.XXX capable of 424mph.
The Me 210/410 was equally "hapless" against s/e fighters. Actually more so.
The RAF evaluated the Mosquito, in lightweight trim, as a heavy day fighter, and decided it wasn't going to cut it. But they did figure out that the Mosquito FB.VI had similar to or better performance to the Luftwaffe's se fighters in certain altitude bands.
As "hapless" as they were, Mosquito fighters and fighter-bombers downed more than a token few German s/e fighters during the war.
I suppose that W4050 could be considered as a bomber prototype, since it came equipped with bomb bay doors. But generally it was considered just as the prototype.
The first bombers (B.IV series i) were converted from PR.Is. I doubt that there was much work in the changeover - install bomb racks, install bomb sight.
A "bugged" aircraft with, from what I am reading here, some serious vices. One that the Luftwaffe probably wished it didn't have!
Or an aircraft that handled beautifully, which was desired by many different branches of the RAF.
I don't get the idea you have that the Mosquito could not "carry any bombs at all".
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
The German wikipedia page about the TA-154, as far as I can view, reports, besides the known problem of the glue, also problems due to moisture in the joints between the wooden and metal parts (understandable, given that the moisture condenses on cold surfaces, such as metal.
As far as I know (but what do I know about woodworking?) plywood ruined by the moisture can not be repaired, it has only to be replaced.
As far as I know (but what do I know about woodworking?) plywood ruined by the moisture can not be repaired, it has only to be replaced.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
1940s "wooden" aircraft may have a lot in common, or very little in common, with wooden furniture or boats or??????
It depends on the EXACT form of "wooden" construction.
This plane used over 60 gals of vinyl-resin plastics in it's construction. You also needed an oven big enough to hold major parts while the vinyl-resins set under heat.
The US Navy used 262 of these 'wooden' aircraft.
From wiki, usual disclaimer:
"It had an unusual feature in that the airframe structure was made from resin impregnated and molded plywood,, creating a composite material stronger and lighter than plywood. This process was patented as the Nuyon process and marketed as the aeromold process.[2] The S-160 received the first approval for a plastic-wood construction, (ATC #747), on 28 August 1941"
and this puzzling statement "Although popular and relatively reliable, the N2T-1 was not built for long-term use, especially being made almost entirely of a wood based composite material that proved to be susceptible to decomposing. Postwar, the N2T was sold to private owners and 10 remained on the U.S. civil aircraft register in 2001"
The entire order was completed in 1943. How may other wartime aircraft had a survival rate of 3.8% in 2001?? for a production run of 15,000 aircraft that would mean 570 left flying in 2001??
The Russian aircraft used a Phenol formaldehyde resin as a bonding agent.
I don't know what the Mosquito used but one has to be careful when comparing different wooden aircraft to "metal" ones BOTH types used a variety of construction methods.
The molded wooden fuselages of the early Lockheeds and the Mosquito often had a better surface finish than metal aircraft ( or were more 'fair'. no dishing between frames/stringers) for less drag.
In some ways they were not as good as an all metal plane but without knowing a LOT of details/specifics it is hard to go on generalities.
It depends on the EXACT form of "wooden" construction.
This plane used over 60 gals of vinyl-resin plastics in it's construction. You also needed an oven big enough to hold major parts while the vinyl-resins set under heat.
The US Navy used 262 of these 'wooden' aircraft.
From wiki, usual disclaimer:
"It had an unusual feature in that the airframe structure was made from resin impregnated and molded plywood,, creating a composite material stronger and lighter than plywood. This process was patented as the Nuyon process and marketed as the aeromold process.[2] The S-160 received the first approval for a plastic-wood construction, (ATC #747), on 28 August 1941"
and this puzzling statement "Although popular and relatively reliable, the N2T-1 was not built for long-term use, especially being made almost entirely of a wood based composite material that proved to be susceptible to decomposing. Postwar, the N2T was sold to private owners and 10 remained on the U.S. civil aircraft register in 2001"
The entire order was completed in 1943. How may other wartime aircraft had a survival rate of 3.8% in 2001?? for a production run of 15,000 aircraft that would mean 570 left flying in 2001??
The Russian aircraft used a Phenol formaldehyde resin as a bonding agent.
I don't know what the Mosquito used but one has to be careful when comparing different wooden aircraft to "metal" ones BOTH types used a variety of construction methods.
The molded wooden fuselages of the early Lockheeds and the Mosquito often had a better surface finish than metal aircraft ( or were more 'fair'. no dishing between frames/stringers) for less drag.
In some ways they were not as good as an all metal plane but without knowing a LOT of details/specifics it is hard to go on generalities.
ALL wooden (mostly) planes have the same problem sooner or later. Mosikto is no different.
- Thread starter
- #90
Now you are being silly. The fact that the RLM kept changing the intended role for the type had a serious effect on production as one aircraft patently couldn't carry out all the desired roles, but rather several sub-types with different equipment and even different hand books. The only night fighter actually developed, by the Hungarians, even had three crew rather than two!
In May 1944 the OKL ordered that all Me 410 A1s and B1s (bomber versions) be converted to heavy fighters. It didn't happen when someone pointed out that the two types had different canopies and facilities and time were not available.
At the same time Me 410 A-1/U2s and Me 410 A-1/U4s as well as Me 410 B-2,B-1/U4s along with reconnaissance versions, Me 410 A-3 and B-3, were to be produced without dive brakes and other bomber related fittings.
It is obvious that there was a wide range of different versions of this aircraft, as disparate as the various marks of the Mosquito.
I haven't included numerous other versions like the B-5 (torpedo bomber) B-6 (naval zerstorer) or B-8 (night reconnaissance) which were planned but never developed, at least not for the Messerschmitt.
Maybe the ultimate compliment to the Mosquito is that in March/April 1944 an Me 410 was tested with a cooling system based on the lay out of a captured Mosquito.
There was a plan to produce the Me 410 with wooden wings in the third quarter of 1945 which obviously never came to pass.
Cheers
Steve
Same thing with the RLM - they ordered a plane into production before it was properly tested, and Messerschmitt, expending a lot already and hard pressed, put it into production prematurely. Not really the fault of either the planes.
So what can it do that existing 109 FRs could not do already (and cheaper)?
So what are you planning to do with a fighter aircraft that cannot engage fighters on equal terms and cannot carry bombs?
But again you have wait for that variant until after the Me 410 is already available, in 1943.. does it sound feasible to replace the Me 410 with it then?
The Me 410 could carry 2 x 1100 lb bombs internally, with much less speed loss plus it can actually defend itself in formation, and was heavily armored.
AFAIK there were some modifications that enabled it to carry bombs under wings as well.
Again the question is - when did this happen? The NF 30 appeared near the war's end IIRC, impressive as it was. Does that warrant waiting a lot more for another plane?
Because..? Neither could hope to win a maneuvering fight, though both could shoot up the occasional - and unfortunate - se fighter that happened to pose before the cannno batteries.
It simply had not. It was as fast or perhaps faster at certain altitudes, but could not hope to get into firing position if they were aware of it.
The same could be said about any other plane, including the Me 110 for example. What does it prove?
... and test them for center of gravity, bomb release reliability, iron out the bugs, produce the planes, train the crews. All this resulting in very few bombs actually dropped by Mosquito bombers until 1943.
So again what are your planning to do with the beautifully handling plane that cannot bomb and cannot really engage fighters yet on anywhere near equal terms? Send them oer France to mix it up with 109Fs? The RAF tested them and considered them more of a liability than an asset for escorting bombers.
From the fact that they really could not, in 1941. Bombers were not ready, fighter could not, PRs obviously could not - yet. The whole point of this thread wheater its feasible or not to have the Mosquito replace equivalent German twins - which again, in 1941 were bugged, but at least could do that.
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
Infact the key factor is "how soon". Any structure will cede, sooner or later.
I don't know. Effects could show the next day, or the next decade. But I think a bigger issue would be weight VS strength survival. Example:
Stiffness is the product of the material modulus of elasticity and the section moment of inertia, or "EI." It determines deflection (sponginess), which is generally the controlling criteria anyway.
For a rectangular cross section, the moment of inertia is (bh^3)/12, where b is width and h is depth.
The modulus of elasticity of some materials is as follows:
Steel: 30,000 ksi
Aluminum: 10,000 ksi
OSB: 1,000 ksi
So the stiffness for a 12" wide strip of 5/8 nominal OSB (actual thickness 19/32") is:
12*(.594^3)/12*1,000,000=209,300lb*in^2
Now to get the same stiffness from aluminum, find X...
12*(x^3)/12*10,000,000=209,300
x=.276"
So to match 5/8 OSB, you need .276" thick aluminum. If you use 1/4", you'll get:
12*(.25^3)/12*10,000,000=156,200 lb in^2 which is only 75% as stiff as the OSB.
Go with 5/16" aluminum and you'll get:
12*(.25^3)/12*10,000,000=305,200 lb*in^2 which is 146% as stiff as the OSB.
Note that the extra 1/16" thickness doubled the stiffness. Also note that any grade of aluminum will be about this stiff.
I would also suspect that a 20mm hit on wood, would be much more catastrophic then a hit on steel/aluminum. Ergo, a Moskito would be
much easier to shoot down.. if it could be caught.
Stiffness is the product of the material modulus of elasticity and the section moment of inertia, or "EI." It determines deflection (sponginess), which is generally the controlling criteria anyway.
For a rectangular cross section, the moment of inertia is (bh^3)/12, where b is width and h is depth.
The modulus of elasticity of some materials is as follows:
Steel: 30,000 ksi
Aluminum: 10,000 ksi
OSB: 1,000 ksi
So the stiffness for a 12" wide strip of 5/8 nominal OSB (actual thickness 19/32") is:
12*(.594^3)/12*1,000,000=209,300lb*in^2
Now to get the same stiffness from aluminum, find X...
12*(x^3)/12*10,000,000=209,300
x=.276"
So to match 5/8 OSB, you need .276" thick aluminum. If you use 1/4", you'll get:
12*(.25^3)/12*10,000,000=156,200 lb in^2 which is only 75% as stiff as the OSB.
Go with 5/16" aluminum and you'll get:
12*(.25^3)/12*10,000,000=305,200 lb*in^2 which is 146% as stiff as the OSB.
Note that the extra 1/16" thickness doubled the stiffness. Also note that any grade of aluminum will be about this stiff.
I would also suspect that a 20mm hit on wood, would be much more catastrophic then a hit on steel/aluminum. Ergo, a Moskito would be
much easier to shoot down.. if it could be caught.
Lordy, not that ole chestnut again.... Here's a quote from a letter between Geoffrey de Havilland and Air Marshall Sir Wilfred Freeman on what eventually became the Mosquito:
"This would employ the well tried out methods of design and construction used in the [D.H.88] Comet and [D.H.91] Albatross and, being of wood or composite construction, would not encroach on the labour and material used in expanding the RAF.
These things (mass-production, durability, sensitivity to weather) did not affect the Mosquito as much as is thought. The issues with delaminating skins was due to faulty manufacture at a particular factory, not a general fault of the construction method of the aircraft. The change to a formaldehyde resin altered the problems encountered. Here's an excerpt from Mosquito by C. Martin Sharp and Michael J.F. Bowyer on the Mosquitoes' wooden construction;
"The greater bulk of wood, for a given strength has advantages. A stressed skin was thick, therefore stiff without the need for much internal reinforcement, leaving clear spaces for tanks bombs, guns and equipment. For lightness, the wing was made in one piece from tip to tip, stressed to carry 82 tons. It accommodated ten tanks, 539 gallons, close to the centre of gravity, their weight spread economically along the span. Shell holes and bullet holes would represent a smaller percentage of the mass of a bulky wooden member; a shell fragment that might sever a strong metal member would scarcely weaken a thick, continuous wood shell or a stout wooden spar. Active service soon verified this. Buoyancy of wood was an advantage. No higher fire risk was expected."
"To develop compression in birch plywood double skins were employed, separated by spruce stringers in the case of the upper surface of the wing, by a thick interlayer of feather weight balsa wood in the fuselage. Thick wooden structures had been developed in the Comet wing and the Albatross wing and fuselage. Surface smoothness possible with wood was exploited. Adaptability of wooden units was proved as variants were built in 1940. Wood also lent itself to the making of the fuselage in halves, as a lobster is served, convenient for plumbing and installing equipment before boxing - especially as the fuselage was small. Wood made for ease of repair in field or workshop. And as expected, woodworkers were readily available. Weathering qualities were were known from experience with the Albatross. A notable improvement was the use of formaldehyde cement instead of casein for surface jointing; this synthetic resin was unaffected by moisture or micro-organisms, and it was a pity that it could not be available from the start."
Here's a section of Mosquito fuselage:
This close-up illustrates the cleanness of the Mosquitoe's finish.
Schrage Musik was not employed by British night fighters, however, night fighter Defiants used the same tactic against German bombers with their turret guns pointing upwards. The turreted Mosquito - a mock-up only, and Beaufighter - an actual Boulton Paul turret - were so equipped to meet a specification released in late 1940 for a turret equipped night fighter to replace the Defiant. None of the designs forwarded were adopted because of the emerging reputation of a certain balsa wood unarmed bomber that was also built as a night fighter...
...and one for the road...
Any excuse to post a picture of this aeroplane...
Last edited:
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
I believe the case for 'greatness' lies in operational achievement. You can theorise till the cows come home but, it what an aircraft proved capable of is the key.
De Havilland Mosquito Operational History:
Entering service in 1941, the Mosquito's versatility was utilized immediately. The first sortie was conducted by a photo reconnaissance variant on September 20, 1941. A year later, Mosquito bombers conducted a famed raid on the Gestapo headquarters in Oslo, Norway which demonstrated the aircraft's great range and speed. Serving as part of Bomber Command, the Mosquito quickly developed a reputation for being able to successfully carry out dangerous missions with minimal losses.
On January 30, 1943, Mosquitos carried out a daring daylight raid on Berlin, making a liar of Reichmarschall Hermann Göring who claimed such an attack impossible. Also serving in the Light Night Strike Force, Mosquitos flew high speed night missions designed to distract German air defenses from British heavy bomber raids. The night fighter variant of the Mosquito entered service in mid-1942, and was armed with four 20mm cannon in its belly and four .30 cal. machine guns in the nose. Scoring its first kill on May 30, 1942, night fighter Mosquitos downed over 600 enemy aircraft during the war.
Equipped with a variety of radars, Mosquito night fighters were used throughout the European Theater. In 1943, the lessons learned on the battlefield were incorporated into a fighter-bomber variant. Featuring the Mosquito's standard fighter armament, the FB variants were capable of carrying 1,000 lbs. of bombs or rockets. Utilized across the front, Mosquito FBs became renowned for being able to carry out pinpoint attacks such as striking the Gestapo headquarters in downtown Copenhagen and breeching the wall of the Amiens prison to facilitate the escape of French resistance fighters.
In addition to its combat roles, Mosquitos were also used as high-speed transports. Remaining in service after the war, the Mosquito was used by the RAF in various roles until 1956. During its ten-year production run (1940-1950), 7,781 Mosquitos were built of which 6,710 were constructed during the war. While production was centered in Britain, additional parts and aircraft were built in Canada and Australia. The Mosquito's final combat missions were flown as part of the Israeli Air Force's operations during the 1956 Suez Crisis. The Mosquito was also operated by the United States (in small numbers) during World War II and by Sweden (1948-1953).
Please see my next post Ju88...
De Havilland Mosquito Operational History:
Entering service in 1941, the Mosquito's versatility was utilized immediately. The first sortie was conducted by a photo reconnaissance variant on September 20, 1941. A year later, Mosquito bombers conducted a famed raid on the Gestapo headquarters in Oslo, Norway which demonstrated the aircraft's great range and speed. Serving as part of Bomber Command, the Mosquito quickly developed a reputation for being able to successfully carry out dangerous missions with minimal losses.
On January 30, 1943, Mosquitos carried out a daring daylight raid on Berlin, making a liar of Reichmarschall Hermann Göring who claimed such an attack impossible. Also serving in the Light Night Strike Force, Mosquitos flew high speed night missions designed to distract German air defenses from British heavy bomber raids. The night fighter variant of the Mosquito entered service in mid-1942, and was armed with four 20mm cannon in its belly and four .30 cal. machine guns in the nose. Scoring its first kill on May 30, 1942, night fighter Mosquitos downed over 600 enemy aircraft during the war.
Equipped with a variety of radars, Mosquito night fighters were used throughout the European Theater. In 1943, the lessons learned on the battlefield were incorporated into a fighter-bomber variant. Featuring the Mosquito's standard fighter armament, the FB variants were capable of carrying 1,000 lbs. of bombs or rockets. Utilized across the front, Mosquito FBs became renowned for being able to carry out pinpoint attacks such as striking the Gestapo headquarters in downtown Copenhagen and breeching the wall of the Amiens prison to facilitate the escape of French resistance fighters.
In addition to its combat roles, Mosquitos were also used as high-speed transports. Remaining in service after the war, the Mosquito was used by the RAF in various roles until 1956. During its ten-year production run (1940-1950), 7,781 Mosquitos were built of which 6,710 were constructed during the war. While production was centered in Britain, additional parts and aircraft were built in Canada and Australia. The Mosquito's final combat missions were flown as part of the Israeli Air Force's operations during the 1956 Suez Crisis. The Mosquito was also operated by the United States (in small numbers) during World War II and by Sweden (1948-1953).
Please see my next post Ju88...
Last edited:
Glider
Captain
No one should ever blame the aircraft.
Get the job done. From the earliest days of the war to the end the RAF using PR SPits and Mosquitos had close to total freedom to to anywhere they liked over Europe and Germany. The Luftwaffe never had such freedom after early 1941. SOme missons got through of course but PR needs constant access to targets to see what has changed.
It was the case it wouldn't have worked and got the reputation it deserved.
PR aircraft operational in 1942, Bombers operational in 1942, NF operational in 1942. Shouldn't the question be why bother with the Me410 when the Moquito is already operational
Fair point but if the bomber is going 400 mph carrying the bombs, why lug around the extra weight which will only let the fighters catch you up?
True but the Mossie was I believe better at this than the Me410. I could be wrong but beleive that at least one Mosquito pilot became an ace on daylight missions
They could and did. The advantage was with the SE of course but I wouldn't say they didn't have a hope. Off Norway there were a number of clashes between Se fighters and the Mosquito
.
The Bugs were all sorted out and the main reason for the delay in production was the pririty given to the NF and PR aircraft
I thought they did quite a lot of things with the Mosquito. It wasn't ideal as an escort certainly but it was sometimes used as an escort for other mosquitos.
I don't think the German twins could. IN 1942 the Me210 was put into production and after 90 were built were taken back out of production because they were so bad. Bugged doesn't come close to describing the fiasco. Whatever the Mosquito could or couldn't do, it clearly did it a lot better than the Me210 that wasn't even being produced.
It worth saying that I like the me410. In the role of precision low altitude strikes I think it could have had a lot of success but it didn't really get the chance.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Operational history Ju88...continuing my post...
Polish Campaign
Only 12 Ju 88s saw action in Poland. The unit Erprobungskommando 88 (Ekdo 88) was responsible for testing new bomber designs and their crews under hostile conditions. They selected 12 aircraft and their crews and attached them to 1./Kampfgeschwader 25.[23] As a result of its small operational numbers, the type made no impact.
Battle of Norway[edit]
The Luftwaffe committed II./Kampfgeschwader 30 to the campaign under X. Fliegerkorps for Operation Weserübung.[24] The unit was equipped with Ju 88s and engaged Allied shipping as its main target. On 9 April 1940, Ju 88s of KG 30 dive-bombed, in cooperation with high-level bombing Heinkel He 111s of KG 26, and helped damage the battleship HMS Rodney and sink the destroyer HMS Gurkha. However, the unit lost four Ju 88s in the action, the highest single loss of the aircraft in combat throughout the campaign.
Battle of France
Ju 88A, circa 1940
The Luftwaffe's order of battle for the French campaign reveals all but one of the Luftwaffe's Fliegerkorps (I. Fliegerkorps) contained Ju 88s in the combat role. The mixed bomber units, including the Ju 88, of Kampfgeschwader 51 (under the command of Luftflotte 3) helped claim between 233 and 248 Allied aircraft on the ground between 10–13 May 1940.[26] The Ju 88 was particularly effective at dive-bombing. Between 13–24 May, I. and II./KG 54 flew 174 attack against rail systems, paralysing French logistics and mobility.[27] On 17 June 1940, Junkers Ju 88s (mainly from Kampfgeschwader 30) destroyed a "10,000 tonne ship", the 16,243 grt ocean liner RMS Lancastria, off Saint-Nazaire, killing some 5,800 Allied personnel.[28] Some 133 Ju 88s were pressed into the Blitzkrieg, but very high combat losses and accidents forced a quick withdrawal from action to re-train crews to fly this very high-performance aircraft. Some crews were reported to be more scared of the Ju 88 than the enemy, and requested a transfer to an He 111 unit.[29] By this time, major performance deficiencies in the A-1 led to an all-out effort in a major design rework. The outcome was a longer, 20.08 m (65 ft 10 1⁄2 in) wingspan, from extended rounded wing tips that had already been standardised on the A-4 version, that was deemed needed for all A-1s; thus the A-5 was born. Surviving A-1s were modified as quickly as possible, with new wings to A-5 specifications.
Battle of Britain
By August 1940, A-1s and A-5s were reaching operational units, just as the battle was intensifying. The Battle of Britain proved very costly. Its faster speed did not prevent Ju 88 losses exceeding those of its Dornier Do 17 and Heinkel He 111 stablemates, despite being deployed in smaller numbers than either. Ju 88 losses over Britain in 1940 amounted to 313 machines between July–October 1940. One notable incident involved ground fighting between the crew of an A-1 and soldiers from the London Irish Rifles during the Battle of Graveney Marsh on 27 September 1940. It was the last action between British and foreign military forces on British mainland soil.[30] Do 17 and He 111 losses for the same period amounted to 132 and 252 machines destroyed respectively.[31][32] A series of field kits were made to make it less vulnerable, including the replacement of the rear machine gun by a twin-barreled machine gun, and additional cockpit armour.
It was during the closing days of the Battle of Britain that the flagship Ju 88 A-4 went into service. Although slower yet than the A-1, nearly all of the troubles of the A-1 were gone, and finally the Ju 88 matured into a superb warplane. The A-4 actually saw additional improvements including more powerful engines, but, unlike other aircraft in the Luftwaffe, did not see a model code change. The Ju 88 C-series also benefited from the A-4 changes, and when the Luftwaffe finally did decide on a new heavy fighter, the Ju 88C was a powerful, refined aircraft.
Eastern Front[edit]
By the summer of 1941 the Ju 88 was to prove a very capable and valuable asset to the Luftwaffe in the east. The Ju 88 units met with instant success, attacking enemy airfields and positions at low level and causing enormous losses for little damage in return. 3./Kampfgeschwader 3 attacked Pinsk airfield in the morning of the 22 June 1941. It caught, and claimed destroyed, 60 Soviet bombers on the ground. The 39 SBAP Regiment of the 10 Division SAD actually lost 43 Tupolev SBa and five Petlyakov Pe-2s. Ju 88s from Kampfgeschwader 51 destroyed over 100 aircraft after dispatching 80 Ju 88s to hit airfields. In general the Soviet aircraft were not dispersed and the Luftwaffe found them easy targets.[33] A report from the Soviet 23rd Tank Division of the 12th Armoured Corps described a low-level attack by Ju 88s on 22 June, resulting in the loss of 40 tanks. However, the Ju 88s were to suffer steady attritional losses. At 0415 on 22 June 1941, III./KG 51 attacked the airfield at Kurovitsa. Despite destroying 34 Polikarpov I-153s, the Ju 88s were intercepted by 66 ShAP I-153s.
Ju 88A of LG 1 over the Eastern Front, 25 September 1941
Due to the lack of sufficient numbers of Ju 87 Stukas, the Ju 88 was employed in the direct ground support role. This resulted in severe losses from ground fire. Kampfgeschwader 1, Kampfgeschwader 76 and Kampfgeschwader 77 reported the loss of 18 Ju 88s over enemy territory on 23 June. KG 76 and KG 77 reported the loss of a further four Ju 88s, of which 12 were 100% destroyed.
The Ju 88s units helped virtually destroy Soviet airpower in the northern sector.
Again, the Ju 88 demonstrated its dive-bombing capability. Along with He 111s from KG 55, Ju 88s from KG 51 and 54 destroyed some 220 trucks and 40 tanks on 1 July, which helped repulse the Soviet South Western Front's offensive. The Ju 88s destroyed most rail links during interdiction missions in the area, allowing Panzergruppe 1 to maintain the pace of its advance.[39]
Ju 88 units operating over the Baltic states during the battle for Estonia inflicted severe losses on Soviet shipping, with the same dive-bombing tactics used over Norway, France and Britain. KGr 806 sank the Soviet destroyer Karl Marx on 8 August 1941 in Loksa Bay Tallinn.[40] On 28 August the Ju 88s had more success when KG 77 and KGr 806 sank the 2,026 grt steamer Vironia, the 2,317 grt Lucerne, the 1,423 grt Artis Kronvalds and the ice breaker Krisjanis Valdemars (2,250 grt). The rest of the Soviet "fleet", were forced to change course. This took them through a heavily mined area. As a result, 21 Soviet warships, including five destroyers, struck mines and sank.
Finnish Air Force Junkers Ju 88 A-4. The FAF aircraft code for Ju 88 was JK
In April 1943, as Finland was fighting its Continuation War against the USSR, the Finnish Air Force bought 24 Ju 88s from Germany.[42] The aircraft were used to equip No. 44 Sqn which had previously operated Bristol Blenheims, but these were instead transferred to No. 42 Sqn. Due to the complexity of the Ju 88, most of 1943 was used for training the crews on the aircraft, and only a handful of bombing missions were undertaken. The most notable was a raid on the Lehto partisan village on 20 August 1943 (in which the whole squadron participated), and a raid on the Lavansaari air field (leaving seven Ju 88 damaged from forced landing in inclement weather).[43] In the summer of 1943, the Finns noted stress damage on the wings. This had occurred when the aircraft were used in dive bombing. Restrictions followed: the dive brakes were removed and it was only allowed to dive at a 45-degree angle (compared to 60-80 degrees previously). In this way, they tried to spare the aircraft from unnecessary wear.
One of the more remarkable missions was a bombing raid on 9 March 1944 against Soviet Long Range Aviation bases near Leningrad, when the Finnish aircraft, including Ju 88s, followed Soviet bombers returning from a night raid on Tallinn, catching the Soviets unprepared and destroying many Soviet bombers and their fuel reserves, and a raid against the Aerosan base at Petsnajoki on 22 March 1944.[43] The whole bomber regiment took part in the defence against the Soviets during the fourth strategic offensive. All aircraft flew several missions per day, day and night, when the weather permitted.[44]
No. 44 Sqn was subordinated Lentoryhmä Sarko during the Lapland War (now against Germany), and the Ju 88s were used both for reconnaissance and bombing. The targets were mostly vehicle columns. Reconnaissance flights were also made over northern Norway. The last war mission was flown on 4 April 1945.
Mossie or Ju88?
Equals in my humble opinion.
Cheers
John
Polish Campaign
Only 12 Ju 88s saw action in Poland. The unit Erprobungskommando 88 (Ekdo 88) was responsible for testing new bomber designs and their crews under hostile conditions. They selected 12 aircraft and their crews and attached them to 1./Kampfgeschwader 25.[23] As a result of its small operational numbers, the type made no impact.
Battle of Norway[edit]
The Luftwaffe committed II./Kampfgeschwader 30 to the campaign under X. Fliegerkorps for Operation Weserübung.[24] The unit was equipped with Ju 88s and engaged Allied shipping as its main target. On 9 April 1940, Ju 88s of KG 30 dive-bombed, in cooperation with high-level bombing Heinkel He 111s of KG 26, and helped damage the battleship HMS Rodney and sink the destroyer HMS Gurkha. However, the unit lost four Ju 88s in the action, the highest single loss of the aircraft in combat throughout the campaign.
Battle of France
Ju 88A, circa 1940
The Luftwaffe's order of battle for the French campaign reveals all but one of the Luftwaffe's Fliegerkorps (I. Fliegerkorps) contained Ju 88s in the combat role. The mixed bomber units, including the Ju 88, of Kampfgeschwader 51 (under the command of Luftflotte 3) helped claim between 233 and 248 Allied aircraft on the ground between 10–13 May 1940.[26] The Ju 88 was particularly effective at dive-bombing. Between 13–24 May, I. and II./KG 54 flew 174 attack against rail systems, paralysing French logistics and mobility.[27] On 17 June 1940, Junkers Ju 88s (mainly from Kampfgeschwader 30) destroyed a "10,000 tonne ship", the 16,243 grt ocean liner RMS Lancastria, off Saint-Nazaire, killing some 5,800 Allied personnel.[28] Some 133 Ju 88s were pressed into the Blitzkrieg, but very high combat losses and accidents forced a quick withdrawal from action to re-train crews to fly this very high-performance aircraft. Some crews were reported to be more scared of the Ju 88 than the enemy, and requested a transfer to an He 111 unit.[29] By this time, major performance deficiencies in the A-1 led to an all-out effort in a major design rework. The outcome was a longer, 20.08 m (65 ft 10 1⁄2 in) wingspan, from extended rounded wing tips that had already been standardised on the A-4 version, that was deemed needed for all A-1s; thus the A-5 was born. Surviving A-1s were modified as quickly as possible, with new wings to A-5 specifications.
Battle of Britain
By August 1940, A-1s and A-5s were reaching operational units, just as the battle was intensifying. The Battle of Britain proved very costly. Its faster speed did not prevent Ju 88 losses exceeding those of its Dornier Do 17 and Heinkel He 111 stablemates, despite being deployed in smaller numbers than either. Ju 88 losses over Britain in 1940 amounted to 313 machines between July–October 1940. One notable incident involved ground fighting between the crew of an A-1 and soldiers from the London Irish Rifles during the Battle of Graveney Marsh on 27 September 1940. It was the last action between British and foreign military forces on British mainland soil.[30] Do 17 and He 111 losses for the same period amounted to 132 and 252 machines destroyed respectively.[31][32] A series of field kits were made to make it less vulnerable, including the replacement of the rear machine gun by a twin-barreled machine gun, and additional cockpit armour.
It was during the closing days of the Battle of Britain that the flagship Ju 88 A-4 went into service. Although slower yet than the A-1, nearly all of the troubles of the A-1 were gone, and finally the Ju 88 matured into a superb warplane. The A-4 actually saw additional improvements including more powerful engines, but, unlike other aircraft in the Luftwaffe, did not see a model code change. The Ju 88 C-series also benefited from the A-4 changes, and when the Luftwaffe finally did decide on a new heavy fighter, the Ju 88C was a powerful, refined aircraft.
Eastern Front[edit]
By the summer of 1941 the Ju 88 was to prove a very capable and valuable asset to the Luftwaffe in the east. The Ju 88 units met with instant success, attacking enemy airfields and positions at low level and causing enormous losses for little damage in return. 3./Kampfgeschwader 3 attacked Pinsk airfield in the morning of the 22 June 1941. It caught, and claimed destroyed, 60 Soviet bombers on the ground. The 39 SBAP Regiment of the 10 Division SAD actually lost 43 Tupolev SBa and five Petlyakov Pe-2s. Ju 88s from Kampfgeschwader 51 destroyed over 100 aircraft after dispatching 80 Ju 88s to hit airfields. In general the Soviet aircraft were not dispersed and the Luftwaffe found them easy targets.[33] A report from the Soviet 23rd Tank Division of the 12th Armoured Corps described a low-level attack by Ju 88s on 22 June, resulting in the loss of 40 tanks. However, the Ju 88s were to suffer steady attritional losses. At 0415 on 22 June 1941, III./KG 51 attacked the airfield at Kurovitsa. Despite destroying 34 Polikarpov I-153s, the Ju 88s were intercepted by 66 ShAP I-153s.
Ju 88A of LG 1 over the Eastern Front, 25 September 1941
Due to the lack of sufficient numbers of Ju 87 Stukas, the Ju 88 was employed in the direct ground support role. This resulted in severe losses from ground fire. Kampfgeschwader 1, Kampfgeschwader 76 and Kampfgeschwader 77 reported the loss of 18 Ju 88s over enemy territory on 23 June. KG 76 and KG 77 reported the loss of a further four Ju 88s, of which 12 were 100% destroyed.
The Ju 88s units helped virtually destroy Soviet airpower in the northern sector.
Again, the Ju 88 demonstrated its dive-bombing capability. Along with He 111s from KG 55, Ju 88s from KG 51 and 54 destroyed some 220 trucks and 40 tanks on 1 July, which helped repulse the Soviet South Western Front's offensive. The Ju 88s destroyed most rail links during interdiction missions in the area, allowing Panzergruppe 1 to maintain the pace of its advance.[39]
Ju 88 units operating over the Baltic states during the battle for Estonia inflicted severe losses on Soviet shipping, with the same dive-bombing tactics used over Norway, France and Britain. KGr 806 sank the Soviet destroyer Karl Marx on 8 August 1941 in Loksa Bay Tallinn.[40] On 28 August the Ju 88s had more success when KG 77 and KGr 806 sank the 2,026 grt steamer Vironia, the 2,317 grt Lucerne, the 1,423 grt Artis Kronvalds and the ice breaker Krisjanis Valdemars (2,250 grt). The rest of the Soviet "fleet", were forced to change course. This took them through a heavily mined area. As a result, 21 Soviet warships, including five destroyers, struck mines and sank.
Finnish Air Force Junkers Ju 88 A-4. The FAF aircraft code for Ju 88 was JK
In April 1943, as Finland was fighting its Continuation War against the USSR, the Finnish Air Force bought 24 Ju 88s from Germany.[42] The aircraft were used to equip No. 44 Sqn which had previously operated Bristol Blenheims, but these were instead transferred to No. 42 Sqn. Due to the complexity of the Ju 88, most of 1943 was used for training the crews on the aircraft, and only a handful of bombing missions were undertaken. The most notable was a raid on the Lehto partisan village on 20 August 1943 (in which the whole squadron participated), and a raid on the Lavansaari air field (leaving seven Ju 88 damaged from forced landing in inclement weather).[43] In the summer of 1943, the Finns noted stress damage on the wings. This had occurred when the aircraft were used in dive bombing. Restrictions followed: the dive brakes were removed and it was only allowed to dive at a 45-degree angle (compared to 60-80 degrees previously). In this way, they tried to spare the aircraft from unnecessary wear.
One of the more remarkable missions was a bombing raid on 9 March 1944 against Soviet Long Range Aviation bases near Leningrad, when the Finnish aircraft, including Ju 88s, followed Soviet bombers returning from a night raid on Tallinn, catching the Soviets unprepared and destroying many Soviet bombers and their fuel reserves, and a raid against the Aerosan base at Petsnajoki on 22 March 1944.[43] The whole bomber regiment took part in the defence against the Soviets during the fourth strategic offensive. All aircraft flew several missions per day, day and night, when the weather permitted.[44]
No. 44 Sqn was subordinated Lentoryhmä Sarko during the Lapland War (now against Germany), and the Ju 88s were used both for reconnaissance and bombing. The targets were mostly vehicle columns. Reconnaissance flights were also made over northern Norway. The last war mission was flown on 4 April 1945.
Mossie or Ju88?
Equals in my humble opinion.
Cheers
John
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
Probably, and the Mossie was surely great, but I thought, however, that the question originally was not: "how great the Mosquito was", but: "If, in 1940, after the flight of the Mosquito prototype, the Germans had been offered the type would they have been wise to take it and abandon all the rest?"
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
