The best 2-engined bomber in 1944-45?

drgondog said:

It is actually a worse condemnation on german radar directed AAA as Brit bombers were generally 7-12K Lower which should give AAA a better probability of a hit.

Click to expand...

1944 was a low point for German radar, as Wurzburg was being succesfully jammed when confronted by formations of aircraft dropping tons of window and carrrying in some cases hundreds of noise jammers kniwn as "carpet".

However when the radar was not degraded by jamming it was very deadly, providing highly accurate range data to FLAK computers, locating the target and either targeting it directly to within a faction of a degree or allowing its illumination for engagement by optical techniques.

The first problem was Windows, this was overcome with a series of coherant pulse doppler circuits, however some time latter "Carpet" noise jamming laid the system low again as the stable frequencies reqiured for pulse dopper were not compatible with the freqency changing methods needed for avoiding noise jamming.

A circuit called k-laus succeded in late 44 or 1945 in recovering use of radar on Wurzburg Riesse and Mannhiem radars, but it was too late for much use.

the 54cm wavelenth over a 3m dish used on Wruzburg-D and Mannheim produced a fairly wide beam, had the Germans used 9cm microwaves their beams would have been 6 time narrower and intercepted 36 times less windows and noise. The abandonment of the microwave radar program in 1942 (apart from one naval radar FuMO 231 Euklid) disrupted even the recovery of the allied technology.

Microwave radars should have been deploying widely from mid 1944 however bombing destroyed both the Sanitaz company' factory making the tubes and latter the Haraeous vacuum casting company making the magnets putting the program of producing 100 microwave radars per month months behined.

K-laus did overcome the problem, as did new tubes that increased pulse power from 8kW to 120kW (Wurzburg-Riesses Gigant) to burn through jamming. What was needed was microaves or a halving of wavelenth as had been originally planned.

The LD7 ceramic disk triode tubes developed by the Germans continued to be copied, in exact form, and used in Soviet era radars all through the 70;s.

These German microave tubes, disk triodes were not vapourware. They were tested in a 5kW radar called Eisbaer in 1941 and produced a 55kW naval radar in 1944. The tubes could produce 20kW pulse at 9cm. The version to produce the 120kW for the Manheim-K LD11 existed.

I must ask a question is all this stuff you state theoretical or otherwise.

tomo pauk said:

although I don't know why this thread covers AAA SA missiles...

We need to make a distinction of Flak - light or heavy.
The heavy flak could and did used radars far better than light flak - Germans have had thousands of the light Flak, thus negating the disadvantage in good deal. Granted, The gunners were able to build the experience during 1940-44, so that was a factor, too.

*provided it can track the low-flying Typhoon, P-47, B-26 etc

Click to expand...

Garaet 58 5.5cm gun.


Heavy FLAK was equiped with good radar as you acknowlege, a Mannheim FuSE 64 combined with a FLAK 37 battery was an effective system.

Geraete 58 was a 5.5cm system with remote power control designed to work with radar that just missed out on deployment. The Soviets developed this
system as their 57mm AAA system after WW2. It came out of the need to protect high value with single hit to kill weapons, the 'dambuster' raid being
one such case where 20mm weapons mortally wounded many bombers but not enough to down them before they released their weapons.

Light FLAK such as the quad 20mm FLAK 38 were also prototyped with radars adapted from night fighters. So heavy, medium and light FLAK were all getting radar direction.

Allied systems such as the 3cm radar 40mm STAG mounts for the Royal Navy were also moving into the area.

The Germans were bound to get their proximity fuse working and so would other technically capable nations. They already has some electrostatic versions working, had a better battery than the allies (molten salt thermal battery) and had the vacuum tubes in development in 1944/45.

The point I am making is this. The A-26 and Mosquito didn't have the performance to survive deep into hostile airspace with the weapons likely to be comming on line in 1945.

Give the Luftwaffe 4 squadrons or A-26's and Mosquitos in 1945 and ask them to attack Britain. They would all get destroyed to an aircraft. Use the same number of Ar 234 and they are likely to avoid interception.

In the Vietnam era the way the A-26 DID survive the presence of radar guided light flak was the very low attack run. You're by the weapon before they can swing the barrel to acquire you. It works much better in mountainous areas, but of course very hazardous at night.

I'm sure if confronted with a similiar situation late in WW2, they would have come up with a solution.

On they could take the German approach, and wait for a super weapon.

Siegfried said:

The point I am making is this. The A-26 and Mosquito didn't have the performance to survive deep into hostile airspace with the weapons likely to be comming on line in 1945.

Give the Luftwaffe 4 squadrons or A-26's and Mosquitos in 1945 and ask them to attack Britain. They would all get destroyed to an aircraft. Use the same number of Ar 234 and they are likely to avoid interception.

Click to expand...

In 1950 some Mosquito B.35s (improved B.XVI) performed a mock attack on a fighter base, which housed Meteors, successfully. The attack was conducted at low level.

According to your description of the weapons coming on line in 1945 the Ar234 wouldn't stand a chance either.

Siegfried said:

View attachment 197910

The Germans were bound to get their proximity fuse working and so would other technically capable nations. They already has some electrostatic versions working, had a better battery than the allies (molten salt thermal battery) and had the vacuum tubes in development in 1944/45.

Click to expand...

This stands out as one of the more exaggerated of your statements. Yes other technically capable nations would eventually have proximity fuzes for artillery shells, but the Germans weren't anywhere near it at the end of the war. They had (several) workable concepts for 'soft' fuzes, but had not done any testing of versions hardened for firing from a cannon, and that was the big hurdle. As far as 'soft' proximity fuzes, even the Japanese used prototype proximity fuzed bombs v the B-29 bases in the Marianas in late 1944. The US NDRC proximity effort was all about producing *hardened* components in *huge quantity*. The concept of the US fuze was adapted from a British concept from early in the war. Making it work in a shell with components that could be manufactured in quantity was the critical trick, and the Germans were not close to doing that.

More generally, producing stuff in quantity wasn't some minor detail, but more like the heart of the matter. That was where the Germans fell well behind the Anglo-Americans generally in electronics by 1944; they simply had less resources.

The Germans were not about to produce AA systems in quantity comparable to the combination of US 90mm AA with M9 director and SCR-584 radar firing VT fuzed ammo already operational in large quantity, not even close. But if you want to assess the vulnerability of 1944-45 prop bombers (including A-26 or Mosquito) to the *best* heavy systems in 1944-45, which were the Allied ones by far, then yes prop a/c without good ECM to counter those systems would suffer heavy losses. German prop bombers, and even jets and V-1's suffered heavily to those systems in actual combat. But the Germans produced no effective ECM v microwave radars or VT fuzes; the Allies would have been in a much better position to do so. A USAAF study concluded that the air offensive over Germany would have been become infeasible v the best US AA weapons of 1944-45, far superior to what the Germans could actually produce in quantity or were near to doing. But it also assumed no ECM developed to counter the US weapons, whereas Allied bomber ECM was quite effective against the less advanced actually operational German systems of 1944-45, and countermeasures to the US AA systems were possible, though never developed by the Germans.

Joe

Getting back to the original thread, Mosquito for me; just incredible what that aeroplane was capable of; it had a definite impact on the course of WW2, and for that reason alone it stands head and shoulders above the A/B-26 in my opinion, as great an aircraft that it was. Tupolev Tu-2 also in my favour.

As for German wonder weapons, in hindsight weren't going to do much to change the outcome of the war, no matter how sophisticated. By 1944/45, the Allies were building more bombers than the Germans were bringing down and with the technological progress of the war being that with every measure, the other side produced a countermeasure, there's no reason to suspect this would have changed had the introduction of the wonder weapons discussed taken place sooner, even though there would have been an immediate impact on the bombers.

Besides, no amount of sophisticated weapons in testing or on the drawing board were going to stop the Russian armies and their steady advance toward the Oder. That is really where the German effort should have been focussed. In short; no wonder weapon was going to prevent what happened to Nazi Germany, and the Mosquito played a big part in bringing about that end.

I'm torn really. I love the solid nose A-20 and B-25, but I think the B-25 would probably not work as well in the European Theater with the solid nose. But for low level work, the A-20 and B-25 with the Para-frag bombs and 6+ forward firing guns for straffing and attack seems like a good fit for the Pacific and Burma theaters.

Is strafing bombing?

Siegfried said:

The point I am making is this. The A-26 and Mosquito didn't have the performance to survive deep into hostile airspace with the weapons likely to be comming on line in 1945

Give the Luftwaffe 4 squadrons or A-26's and Mosquitos in 1945 and ask them to attack Britain. They would all get destroyed to an aircraft. Use the same number of Ar 234 and they are likely to avoid interception.

Click to expand...

"Would have, could have, should had." IF THE QUEEN HAD BALLS SHE'D BE THE KING!

From Wiki...



Parallel NDRC work focused on anti-aircraft fuzes. Major problems included microphonic difficulties and tube failures attributed to vibration and acceleration in gun projectiles. The T-3 fuze had a 52% success against a water target when tested in January, 1942. The United States Navy accepted that failure rate and batteries aboard cruiser USS Cleveland (CL-55) tested proximity-fuzed ammunition against drone aircraft targets over Chesapeake Bay in August 1942. The tests were so successful that all target drones were destroyed before testing was complete. First large scale production of tubes for the new fuzes was at a General Electric plant in Cleveland, Ohio formerly used for manufacture of Christmas-tree lamps. Fuze assembly was completed at General Electric plants in Schenectady, New York and Bridgeport, Connecticut.

By 1944 a large proportion of the American electronics industry concentrated on making the fuzes. Procurement contracts increased from $60 million in 1942, to $200 million in 1943, to $300 million in 1944 and were topped by $450 million in 1945. As volume increased, efficiency came into play and the cost per fuze fell from $732 in 1942 to $18 in 1945. This permitted the purchase of over 22 million fuzes for approximately $1,010 million. The main suppliers were Crosley, RCA, Eastman Kodak, McQuay-Norris and Sylvania.

A well know fact that the US Navy used proximity fuses on anti-aircraft guns and their effectivness was highly documented.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm


Getting back on subject...

I'd have to go with the B-26 just edging out the Mossie. It's evident that by looking at the B-26's (A-26) longevity that it was a potential weapon. I'd have to rate it better than the Mossie in terms of operational matainability (a round engine vs. liquid cooled and also wood vs. metal construction - this subject has been beat to death on other threads).

Although the killing potential was there, I would dismiss any jet bomber of the day. Despite showing great potential, during the time frame we are looking at, their reliability is highly questionable compared to their slower but if not more effective allied contemporaries.

I think the Soviet PE-2 or IL-10 are worthy of note but I am also partial to the A-26 as an all around delivery system. I always thought the A-26 was a A-20 on steroids.

I will go for the English Electric Canberra.

Whada ya mean it wasnt in service and didnt fly till 1949 it was down on paper and thats good enough for the Nazi Vunder Veapon Napkinwaffe boys.

Lets not start a pissing contest here...

This is not a Kindergarten. Just don't stoop to their level.

FLYBOYJ said:

I'd have to go with the B-26 just edging out the Mossie. It's evident that by looking at the B-26's (A-26) longevity that it was a potential weapon. I'd have to rate it better than the Mossie in terms of operational matainability (a round engine vs. liquid cooled and also wood vs. metal construction - this subject has been beat to death on other threads).

Click to expand...

As I said before, the longevity argument doesn't fly.

The A/B-26 was retired at about the same time as the Mosquito, in the 1950s. That a few were brought out of storage some 15 years later and extensively modified (lots of structural strengthening) to serve as an interim because the USAF had nothing better doesn't count as longevity. Now, if they had been in continuous service with the USAF that would be a different matter - but they didn't. And in talking longevity, do we talk about the 2-3 years of service Mosquitos put in before teh A-26 even made it to the front line?

As for serviceability, it would be interesting if we had comparitive numbers for service hours vs operational flight hours for the two types. We do know that Mosquitos didn't get a lot of rest - one month one squadron bombed Berlin every night. One Mosquito racked up 215 missions before it was retired from the front line (only to crahs on a demonstration tour of Canada!).

Wood construction was actually wood-composite construction. Wood has one important advantage over metal - it doesn't fatigue.

The Mosquito's advantages over the A/B-16 were (IMO) that it was faster (except near sea level), had a higher ceiling, better range, used fewer crew to deliver the same (roughly speaking) bombload. Mosquitos coudl also carry the 4000lb HC or 4000lb MC bombs - could the A-26?

The Mosquito, hands down. It could carry most of the bomb load of a B-17 all the way to Berlin, using half the engines and a fifth of the crew, and substain far fewer losses doing it. Which begs the question, wouldn't the Mighty 8th have been better off with Mossies rather than Fortresses? Excuse me while I run for cover...

I cant decide between 3 aircraft the A-26 the Tu-4 or the Mossie. On the simple basis that the Mossie is earlier I will go with it as the best. The A-26 and the Tu-4 are an incredibly close joint 2nd.

If we are talking about length of service being the final arbiter then the Tu-4 wins hands down it was in continuous service till the late 70s which beats the A/B-26.

wuzak said:

As I said before, the longevity argument doesn't fly.

Click to expand...

Why not? It shows they are able to continue to perform a role way past this operational heyday.

wuzak said:

The A/B-26 was retired at about the same time as the Mosquito, in the 1950s.

Click to expand...

NOT TRUE - they were used extensively during the Korean War and served in National Guard units up to and into the Viet Nam War

wuzak said:

That a few were brought out of storage some 15 years later and extensively modified (lots of structural strengthening) to serve as an interim because the USAF had nothing better doesn't count as longevity. Now, if they had been in continuous service with the USAF that would be a different matter - but they didn't. And in talking longevity, do we talk about the 2-3 years of service Mosquitos put in before teh A-26 even made it to the front line?

Click to expand...

Again not completely true - although there were some A-26s modified out of the bone yard, some that served in Vietnam came from guard units AFAIK.

wuzak said:

As for serviceability, it would be interesting if we had comparative numbers for service hours vs operational flight hours for the two types. We do know that Mosquitos didn't get a lot of rest - one month one squadron bombed Berlin every night. One Mosquito racked up 215 missions before it was retired from the front line (only to crahs on a demonstration tour of Canada!).

Click to expand...

That proves the aircraft resiliency for the time it was operated. Take that airframe and put it out in the desert or Jungle and bring it back to England and see what would have happened - another reason why the Mosquito didn't last long in the post war period.

wuzak said:

Wood construction was actually wood-composite construction. Wood has one important advantage over metal - it doesn't fatigue.

Click to expand...

But it does have a shelf life - it expands and contracts, is harder to repair and will eventually break down - the Mosquito was cleverly constructed in its heyday but let's face it, "wood composite" structures on a primary airframe quickly became a thing of the past. Metal does fatigue, but it can be made to last longer than any wood structure.

wuzak said:

The Mosquito's advantages over the A/B-16 were (IMO) that it was faster (except near sea level), had a higher ceiling, better range, used fewer crew to deliver the same (roughly speaking) bombload. Mosquitos coudl also carry the 4000lb HC or 4000lb MC bombs - could the A-26?

Click to expand...

No doubt about the speed and payload capability of the Mosquito over the A-26. The A-26 had a more advanced airframe, its configuration (tricycle landing gear) enabled the aircraft to be operated safer and its airframe gave it room for growth and again longevity. Both were great aircraft and although the Mosquito was superior in some aspects, it was a dated design when compared to the A-26.

CobberKane said:

The Mosquito, hands down. It could carry most of the bomb load of a B-17 all the way to Berlin, using half the engines and a fifth of the crew, and substain far fewer losses doing it. Which begs the question, wouldn't the Mighty 8th have been better off with Mossies rather than Fortresses? Excuse me while I run for cover...

Click to expand...

Run now!!!!

Although the Mosquito was able to carry the same bomb load it was not able to deliver it from altitude at the speeds it was famous for if deployed in the same manner. To carry out a daylight precision strike like the 8th AF did with the Mosquito would be placing the same amount of aircraft over a target at 130 - 150 mph while a lead plane with a bomb sight guided the formation over the target. Flying straight and level, how long would that two man crew survived? Also remember the Mosquito was not able to drop its bombs at top speed, I think the opening of the bomb bay doors were limited to something like 280 or 300 mph (that subject was discussed on another thread somewhere on this site)

Has anyone thought that the Mosquito was a bare bones bird , I read of one guy post war losing his hydraulics and then (I hope I get this right) had a runaway prop which he was not able to feather because there was no resovoir . I can't quote this bible and verse as my book is sitting in a A340 somewhere I hope

The 8th AF did precision bombing? Why would the Mossie be flying slower than the B-17?

I don't know what it is for the bomber but for the FB VI the max speed for bomb bay open was 305kt or 350mph.