WHich bomber had the best defence

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

wuzak said:
Not true.

They could also carry the 4,000lb Medium Capacity bomb.
Click to expand...
true but they only it carried about 141 times ?,
the 4000lb High capacity bomb or light case or...... seems to have gone through several marks but some sources claim 6000-7000 were carried by mosquitoes? making the 4000lb medium capacity bomb rather a side note.

4000lb MC being the bomb on the right in the front row.

the 4000lb MK II bomb seems to have been a G.P. bomb that weighed an actual 3587lbs with 1070lbs of filler according to the bomb specification booklet recently posted.
The 1900lb GP bomb (2nd bomb-2nd row) had 470lbs of filler.
The 1st bomb-2nd row may be miss identified. There is no 2000lb MC bomb in the listings (listings may be wrong?) but the 2000lb AP bomb seems to be the right diameter and length. Since the 2000lb AP bomb only carried 166lbs of explosive there was no reason to carry it unless a major warship (Battleship) was the target.



And, yet, thy still managed to do that, night after night.
Click to expand...
Very true but trying for exotic loading's like a 4000lb internal and pair of 500lbs under wing or 4000lb bomb internal and under wing drop tanks puts the plane well into overload.
But then many, many B-17s (and other bombers ) operated well into overload conditions also. Questions are what restrictions are imposed when overloaded.
 

True.

Bomber Command dropped at least 4 times the number of the HC as they did the MC.

I can't recall if the 4,000lb MC was used against oil facilities or not, and I am away from my files. Definitely the HC was.

Possibly it was also used against canals.

There was a 4,000lb MC bomb with ~57% charge to weight ratio
4000lb Medium Capcity Bomb

And a 4,000lb GP bomb with a ~30% charge to weight ratio
4000lb General Purpose Bomb



Agreed. It very much looks like the 2,000lb AP bomb.


Shortround6 said:
Very true but trying for exotic loading's like a 4000lb internal and pair of 500lbs under wing or 4000lb bomb internal and under wing drop tanks puts the plane well into overload.
Click to expand...

That depends on the model. The B.Mk IV was very much overloaded with the 5,000lb bomb load, or 4,000lb bomb load with drop tanks, but the B.Mk XVI was around its maximum loading.
 
There are many aspects to a bombers defence. Its speed, armament (in number, caliber and coverage) agility and defensive measures. At one point on a triangle is the mosquito at another the B29 and another the fighter versions of the B19 and B24 which only bombed germany with shell casings. It all depends when and where you want to drop the bombs and how many bombs you want drop and then how much do you want to spend. I would say the B29 or Mosquito ad that rules out the planes that really did the hard work so for me it is the B24/Lancaster you cannot compare day/night defense.
 
Milosh said:
Anyone know why the Avro carrier wasn't used by the Mossie?
Click to expand...

I personally haven't been able to find any evidence of its existence.

I can't recall right now if the standard bomb carriers used in the Mosquito were Handley Page or Avro type Universal Bomb Carriers, These were designed to carry various bombs up to the rated loading, which was 500lb in case of the Mosquito. To carry 4 bombs 4 of these would be required.

One Mosquito was modified with a modified bomb beam from a Wellington. This operated in a similar way to the bomb supports in the B-17, in that the bombs were slung from the side of the structure. In the case of teh Wellington there was one beam that could take bombs on either side, and one that took them on only one side.

For the Mosquito, the beam used hung bombs from both sides. Originally the idea was to expand the capacity of the Mosquito for marking by increasing the number of Target Indicators it could carry, and better utilising the extra space afforded by the bulged bomb bay. With the modified Wellington bomb beam the Mosquito could carry 8 x 250lb TIs instead of 4.

The Air Ministry were also interested in using the modified beam with 8 x 500lb MC bombs (there were no 500lb TIs). de Havilland noted that would move the CoG rearwards to an unacceptable degree (not clear whether this was for a IV/XX or XVI or both). The AM suggested 4 x 500lb and 4 x 250lb, but the file I have shows no response to the enquiry.
 
Regarding the bomb carriers, I found these bits in my files:

The carriers used in the FB.VI (and B.IV) were Handley Page types:


Avro carriers were used for the twin adaptors for 2 x 1,000lb bombs.


Discussion for increasing the load of the Mosquito with bulged bomb bay included a 6 store carrier.


Unfortunately that was on of the last pages in the file.
 

Having re-read the file, it is clear that the aircraft for which the Wellington bomb beam was destined was a B.XVI.

In addition to the CoG issue, de Havillands felt that the all up weight would be over limit as well.
 
Shortround6 said:
the 4000lb MK II bomb seems to have been a G.P. bomb that weighed an actual 3587lbs with 1070lbs of filler according to the bomb specification booklet recently posted.
Click to expand...





From British Explosive Ordnance, NAVORD OP 1665.

This file is located somewhere on this site.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-1-11_18-44-9.png
    8.6 KB · Views: 87
  • upload_2017-1-11_18-44-54.png
    8.3 KB · Views: 93
The 4,000 lb MC bomb was rushed through in 1943 to replace the 4,000 lb GP bomb which Bomber Command considered 'suspect'.
The initial concept was to use it to attack substantially constructed industrial complexes and ship yards from low level. Trials showed that it had good penetrative properties even when dropped from as low as 100 ft, creating a crater 14 ft deep and 64 ft wide. There may have been some failings in inter departmental communications as, by the time the bomb became available, Harris made it clear that he had no intention of risking his 'heavies' on low level attacks of this nature and in any event he was enjoying considerable success from high level since the advent of the PFF, various aids and loads comprising the large HC bombs and incendiaries. As a result there were no specific targets for the new 4,000 lb MC bomb and it was relegated to use for general bombardment from high level.
Bomber Command dropped 21,000 of these bombs, 13,000 in 1944. Some were dropped by main force squadrons in area raids but it was the Mosquitoes which could deliver them rather more clinically. For example the famous raids by aircraft of Nos. 128,571 and 692 Squadrons on 1st January 1945, in which they hurled their bombs into the mouths of vital road and rail tunnels in the Mosel/Rhine valleys near Koblenz made successful use of the 4,000 lb MC bomb.
Most sources for the Mosquito refer to all 4,000 lb bombs dropped as 'cookies' and this is obviously wrong as they certainly carried the MC version operationally. What percentages of 4,000 lb HC and MC bombs they carried I have not found....yet. Where did the 141 number come from?

At a slight tangent, an illustration of the different loads carried for different targets by the Lancasters of a typical main force squadron, in this case No. 57 Squadron, on just four days in early 1945.

4/5 Jan Attack on canal viaduct at Landbergen 1 x 4,000 lb HC, 16 x 500 lb MC
5/6 Jan Oil targets 13 x 1,000 lb MC
6/7 Jan Mining 6 x A Mark I-IV Mines
7/8 Jan Area Attack, Munich 1 x 4,000 lb HC, 10 x Incendiary Clusters

The versatility allowed by that wide open bomb bay is a factor often overlooked in discussions of WW2 bombers.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:

That number comes from Sharp and Bowyer, Mosquito.

They also list 776 4,000lb HC, 7,469 4,000lb M2 (Mk II HC I presume), 12 1,000lb MC and 2 1,000lb GP. (I believe the 1,000lb bombs were all carried on the same raid - to the Gestapo headquarters in Oslo - by 627 squadron). Some 31,000+ 500lb MC and 11,000+ 500lb GP bombs were also used.

347 1,000lb TI and 16,652 250lb TIs were dropped, while 8 4,000lb Incendiary bombs and nearly 19,000 4lb incendiaries (in small bomb containers) were used by Mosquitoes.
 
Last edited:
Referring to bomber armament I just read an interesting factor, related to the generally greater weight of larger guns, when fitted to the Lancaster.
The Lancaster VII had the standard .303 armed FN50 mid upper turret replaced with an electrically operated Martin 250 series turret equipped with .5 calibre machine guns. With its much greater weight, in no small part due to the much heavier ammunition, the American turret had to be fitted six feed further forward in order to keep the aircraft withing CoG limits, and its a big, heavy, aircraft.

The absence of any under armament on the vast majority of Lancasters and Halifaxes is often quoted as a serious failing by Bomber Command to protect its crews. In fact, in July 1943, a requirement for an 'Under Defence Gun' was re-instated. This would have been the FN64 ventral turret, which was quite a sleek design. Only the gun mounting protruded into the airflow, the gunner remained entirely in the aircraft, sighting through a prismatic sight. The guns could depress 80 degrees and traverse 100 degrees. The view through the sight was only 20 degrees and when the bomber made evasive manoeuvres it was found to be virtually useless.
This is an important point. The aircraft of day light operating US formations flew in mutually supporting formation. Their gunners were afforded a stable gun platform from which to fire. British bombers operating at night may have been in a stream, but in defensive terms it was everyman for himself. The primary defence was the stealth afforded by darkness and the primary evasive action was a corkscrew. No sane British bomber pilot would fly straight and level once a night fighter was seen manoeuvering to attack and allow his gunners to fight it out.

It was the decision in late 1943 to equip main force aircraft with H2S that did for the ventral gun position. H2S left no space for a 'belly' gun, replacing the Preston Green mounting for such a weapon in the Halifax and similar arrangements in some Lancasters.

Attached an FN64 turret outside the aircraft to give a better idea of how it worked.



Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
wuzak said:
while 8 4,000lb Incendiary bombs .... were used by Mosquitoes.
Click to expand...

These are a bit of an anomaly, even though interesting. It was actually a 4,000lb HC bomb case filled with 'incendiary substance'. It weighed in at 2,700 lb. The same case had been used to make the 'Pink Pansy' target marker in 1942 and this may be the origin for the idea of a really big incendiary bomb. It was never fully developed and those dropped by the Mosquitoes (I know four were dropped by No 139 Squadron on Berlin on the night of 12/13 April 1945) were used at a time when just about anything to hand was being dropped on Germany's devastated cities.
Edit:
I'm not sure what he means by 'Mk2', but you may be correct. The problem is that the Mk I was introduced in early 1941, and by October 1942 we were already on the Mk IV.
Maybe he has just lumped everything that had the dome nosed Mk II onwards shape as a 'Mk 2' as they were obviously, visibly, different from the Mk I.
Cheers
Steve
 
Last edited:
Further to wuzak's post, you will notice the relatively low number of 1,000 lb TIs dropped by Mosquitoes. They were rarely used by the 8 Group (PFF) Mosquitoes but were more often used by 5 Group's own pathfinders, particularly for the low level marking technique they developed.
The 250 lb TI ejected 60 coloured 9" candles, the 1,000 lb version 200 similar candles. Both worked in a similar way, a 3 oz. bursting or ejection charge blew the candles out of the rear of the bomb case at the desired time. For 'ground marking' the fuse was set to eject the candles anywhere from 1,500 ft right down to the point of impact. From the more usual 1,500 ft the candles would spread over an area between 60 and 100 yards on the ground. For 'sky marking' the candles would be ejected at 9,000 ft or more, depending on the cloud ceiling. This sort of sky marking by TIs should not be confused with other sky marking techniques. The British developed more than 40 different pyrotechnic devices for various forms of marking.

The very first bomb dropped on Dresden was a 1,000 lb Target Indicator, from one of 5 Group's pathfinder Mosquitoes, flown by the wonderfully named Flt.Lt. William Topper and navigated by Flt.Lt. Davies, of No. 627 Squadron. He and the other pathfinder Mosquitoes dropped the TIs from around 2,000 ft, they were set to eject their pyrotechnics at 700 ft. All eight Mosquitoes marked within 100 yards of the aiming point (the Ostragehege stadium). We all know what came next.

Cheers

Steve
 

The info (the number of different bomb types dropped from Mossie bombers during the WWII) is also in Simons' Mosquito: The Original Multi-Role Aircraft (1990)
 

I believe 627 Squadron had single 1,000lb bomb adaptors built for their Mosquitoes and had started working on a twin adaptor on their own accord.

I will check tonight.
 
I have read that many Bomber Command pilots forbade the gunners from firing but insisted they simply kept close watch and gave him the corkscrew left or right command.
 
wuzak said:
I believe 627 Squadron had single 1,000lb bomb adaptors built for their Mosquitoes and had started working on a twin adaptor on their own accord.

I will check tonight.
Click to expand...

A quick search couldn't find anything naming 627 Squadron as the creator of a twin adaptor, but work was certainly carried out at their base at RAF Oakington.
 
I think a better question would be what authors, if any, are considered reliable sources? Marten Caidin was a very readable author but was I believe accused of a great deal of plagiarism and not a small amount of creative license without identifying clearly where he was being creative. So far 2/3 of my library has become suspect since joining this forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

J
Factory defence
Replies
9
Views
2K
nuuumannn
Dive-bomber crew skills
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3K
Thumpalumpacus
Getting the best mileage from the squeeze-bore guns?
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
M
Bomber Armor In WW2
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ascent
W
Air Traffic Control - Bomber Command
Replies
9
Views
914
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register