Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
Joe
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.
Joe
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.
Joe
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.
Joe
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
Why not? It shows they are able to continue to perform a role way past this operational heyday.
NOT TRUE - they were used extensively during the Korean War and served in National Guard units up to and into the Viet Nam War
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.
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.
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).
Reliability during test and operational reliability can vary greatly.
If that fuze was ready for production in 1944, but was prevented by the factory being over run, It must have been ready for production very late in 44, and that factory must have been awfully near the western border, because no allied soldiers got into Germany till Oct. 44.
Like someone else said about the wunderwaffe, could've, would've, should've, but didn't. In other words irrelevant in the discussion about about twin-engine bombers.
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)
The coulda would shoulda joke is just plain silly. I have given dates for either service entry and field trials of these weapons. They are not weapons that were mere projections, they were built and either in full production (like the manheim radar) or low level production (like the German microwave radars only held back by damage to magnetron production) or in an advanced state of development. About 2000 rounds of 88mm gun shell with proximity fuze was fired with reliabillity starting at 90% and reaching 95%. As far as the Rheinmetall-Borsig electrostatic proximity fuzes reliabilly: it would have been much more reliable than the allied radio fuze by its nature. The cold gas thyratron was intrinsically far more reliable than a thermionic tube and only 1 or 2 tubes was needed instead of 7 or 8. No unreliable battery was needed (only a capacitor which are easily shock hardened)
Didn't make a lick of difference to Germany's war effort or the inevitable outcome, in which the de Havilland Mosquito played a decisive part in 1944 -45.
1. My source is "Radar History of WWII" by Brown. There's lot of verbiage in your response but no solid source quoted, (not 'supposed') that contradicts my statement: the Germans got as far as testing (several) designs of *soft* proximity fuzes, concepts they perhaps hoped to build into artillery shells, but never did the testing and development of hardened fuzes, and that was the biggest hurdle.1. The Germans had worked out that going for a direct hit and not bothering with fuze setting (it wasted time, cost money, required powerful explosives and complicated fragmentation). This was the best of both worlds.
The report of the actual fuze is supposedly in:
"Proximity Fuse Development - Rheinmettal Borsig A.G.
Mullhausen. CIOS report ITEM nos 3 file nos XXVI -1 (1945)
Another mentions thermionic tube development at Telefunken (instead of Siemens)
capable of surviving several thousand G
http://www.cdvandt.org/CIOS-XXXII-87.pdf
There are references to a KTB (Officers Daily Journal) of an officer sent to fetch a proximity fuse for a 5 inch FLAK shell for use in a V2 missile.
This fuse was essentially ready for production in 1944 as it was 95% reliable but unfortunately the factory was over run.
The battery seems to have been molten salt type first used in the V2 and adopted by the US post war.
2. This ignores the allied bombing campaign after 1944.
3. The US 90mm was no better than the German 88mm FLAK 43 which featured autoloaders, autofuze setters and outstanding ballistics.
4. The Germans had 'effective' ECM, they were successful pioneers in the field. This included jamming the US SCR-268 radar in 1943 and 1944 forcing the SCR-584 to be rushed into service in January 1944. They at times jammed Chain Home.
5. US AA weapons had 2 advantages worthy of consideration.
1 The proximity fuse, which was potentially very vulnerable to jamming due to the limited sophistication possible.
2 A microwave radar system whose narrow beam provided greater angular accuracy and resistance to jamming but was not superior in range accuracy or features such as auto track.
Then your date of ready for production in 44 must be a error, Russia didn't cross the border into Germany till Jan. 45.The A-26 had no influence on the war. It came way to late to matter. When it did come into service into numbers it was post war and was used to strafe small statured people fighting wars of liberation who had little in the way of suffcient numbers of sophisticated defences and what they did have they didn't make themselves but received. It was easy to intercept, it's remote controlled armament was ineffective and in fact of such little use it was removed. It relied on air superiority on vastly more advanced aircraft. A competantly conceived A-26 would at least have had a radar directed tail gun if it were built to the times. The A-26 entered service at the same month as the Jets that outmoded it. The A-26 was an anachronism from the first day it entered service in september 1944 (the same time as the Me 262 and Meteor) to the day it was retired. I still state that by its nature it was inadaquete against an enemy of equal technical sophistication. The Mosquito belongs in the discusion, the A-26 does not.
The Rheinmetall-Borsig factory that was lost was in Eastern Parts of Germany, now Poland. It was very difficult to get anything new into mass production in 1944 in Germany.
The coulda would shoulda joke is just plain silly. I have given dates for either service entry and field trials of these weapons. They are not weapons that were mere projections, they were built and either in full production (like the manheim radar) or low level production (like the German microwave radars only held back by damage to magnetron production) or in an advanced state of development. About 2000 rounds of 88mm gun shell with proximity fuze was fired with reliabillity starting at 90% and reaching 95%.
As far as the Rheinmetall-Borsig electrostatic proximity fuzes reliabilly: it would have been much more reliable than the allied radio fuze by its nature. The cold gas thyratron was intrinsically far more reliable than a thermionic tube and only 1 or 2 tubes was needed instead of 7 or 8. No unreliable battery was needed (only a capacitor which are easily shock hardened)
I dispute that it was the case for the A-26. The Korean War didn't extend past the service life of the Mosquito.
And what did guard units use them for?
And like all wood aircraft, it had trouble with wood swelling and drying.Not the case at all. Mosquitos had difficulty in the tropics because of the glue, but that was solved during the war.
Mosquitos were replaced by jet aircraft - like the Canberra.
NOT TRUE - I have worked on both metal and wood aircraft and wood is way more difficult to inspect and repair. The shop enviornment has to be clean, glues and resins have to be prepared at certain temperatures and during the curing process the area has to be kept clean and sometimes at certain temperatures.I would argue that the Mosquito's structure was easier to repair. Depending were the damage was it could be just patched. Winds could be sawed off and another spliced in place.
At that time all true but once that industry was taken away we seen much of the Mosquito fleet disappear as there was little or no field support for the aircraft in the post WW2 era.Trying desperately to stay on thread and avoid more discussions about the merits of German wonder weapons! I gotta agree with you to a certain extent, but the argument that Mossies were inferior to the A-26 in 1944-45 for this reason isn't that strong. There was an entire industry supporting the maintenance of the Mosquito in RAF service; wooden construction and in-line engines were definitely not a disadvantage at this time.
Fair enough, although I think your description of the 8th AF performing 'precision stike(s)' is more a reflection of the wishful thinking of the times than the historical reality. I think by D-Day the USAAF tacticians had pretty much accepted that destroying the intended target generally involved taking out half the surrounding city as well. What was that oft-used expression? The RAF area-bombed precision targets and the USA precision-bombed area targets. I suspect the distinction might have been lost on the people underneath. Full credit to the Americans for trying to keep the civilian casualties down, but the technology of the time just wasn't sufficient for the job.
Of course, if you really wanted to take something out with pinpoint accuracy the best option was a low level strike with a fast manouverable bomber - like the Mosquito.
While I agree the A-26 had no real impact on the war it was a generation a head of the Mosquito as far as construction, operation, systems, room for growth and longevity. While the Mosquito had advantages over the A-26, just it's configuration made it an operational risk. The A/B-26 performed well not only during WW2 but two wars later in a number of roles.The A-26 had no influence on the war. It came way to late to matter. When it did come into service into numbers it was post war and was used to strafe small statured people fighting wars of liberation who had little in the way of suffcient numbers of sophisticated defences and what they did have they didn't make themselves but received. It was easy to intercept, it's remote controlled armament was ineffective and in fact of such little use it was removed. It relied on air superiority on vastly more advanced aircraft. A competantly conceived A-26 would at least have had a radar directed tail gun if it were built to the times. The A-26 entered service at the same month as the Jets that outmoded it. The A-26 was an anachronism from the first day it entered service in september 1944 (the same time as the Me 262 and Meteor) to the day it was retired. I still state that by its nature it was inadaquete against an enemy of equal technical sophistication. The Mosquito belongs in the discusion, the A-26 does not.
While I agree the A-26 had no real impact on the war it was a generation a head of the Mosquito as far as construction, operation, systems, room for growth and longevity. While the Mosquito had advantages over the A-26, just it's configuration made it an operational risk. The A/B-26 performed well not only during WW2 but two wars later in a number of roles.
on the turn I noted a variation in my port oil pressure and so decided to watch it on the southbound line. When the oil pressure drops you immediatly hope you have a faulty instrument .No Way the chance of an oil pressure guage lying to you is very much less then the chance of winning the lotteryThat sucks!
AFAIK the Mosquito had an auto feather system where by the push of a button would feather the prop after the engine was shut down. In the case of a run away prop I would think that something happened so the prop hub lost hydraulic fluid (which is not part of the main system).
The Mosquito had a basic hydraulic hydraulic system with each engine driving a pump. I'm pretty sure it had a reservior but no accumulator.
Bombers are essentially bomb trucks.
A worthwhile bomber has to carry a worthwhile bomb load to a certain distance.
A worthwhile bomber has to be able to hit the target (or come fairly close).
A worthwhile bomber has to have a survival rate good enough to keep losses to an acceptable level.
Needing 3-4 bombers to carry the same payload as a single bomber of another type is not a good thing.
Not being able to reach a fair number of targets is not a good thing.
Bombing at high speed from medium altitudes is probably no better than medium or low speed bombing from higher altitudes. Better bomb sights and electronic aids do help as the war goes on.
While it doesn't tell the whole story, planes lost per 100tons (or per 1000tons) bombs dropped might be a better indicator of a bombers "effectiveness" than number of planes lost per 100 or 1000 missions.