|
|
#41
10-06-2008, 10:27 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Without guided munitions, all high altitude bombing is going to be somewhat inaccurate, and nighttime makes that much worse. 
|
|
#42
10-07-2008, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yep, you're right, but it's no use having a 8 ton bomb load when
a) you can't ensure a sufficient number of bombers reaching the target due to survivability issues b) half of the time these bombs are dropped on empty countryside and c) you lose a few hundred of hard to train aircrew each night, while the Mossie only has a crew of 2-3 Of course, during the late stages of the war that accuracy improved and air superiority was in allied hands we could argue that RAF night heavies could at last do a proper job so we can't really discount them totally. The reason is simple, you can't develop new heavy bombers in the span of 1-2 years during wartime. So, while it might have been more effective to use Mossies until advances in navigation, accuracy and survivability were made for the heavies, we could also say that if no 4 engined heavies were around for the early part of the war then there would be no reason to improve and refine them or the tactics they used, so in the end there probably would be no heavies at all. Interesting conundrum this one 
|
|
#43
10-07-2008, 06:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The main problem was appallingly bad navigation. Dead reckoning just wasn't good enough at night, with the ground often obscured by clouds (bear in mind that there was no way to measure the windspeed in real time over enemy territory with the equipment available at that time). The mossie has a crew of 2 as a glazed nosed bomber? The Lancaster had a crew of 7, and a bomb load of 14,000lb. To carry the same load in Mosquitos would require 3+1/2 planes, with 7 crew. 
|
|
#45
10-07-2008, 08:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Mossie had a crew of: pilot and navigator/bomb aimer or navigator/radar operator.
I'll say it again, replace the American heavies, especially the B-17. This would give a surplus .50" guns which could have been fitted to the Lancaster. The Lancaster was needed for its heavy lift capacity. "In 1941 the average bomb load per attacking aircraft was 2,889 lbs whereas by 1944 it had risen to 9,155 lbs according to ACM Harris' Dispatch. In the official history the average bomb load of RAF bombers is given as 6,903 lbs in 1943, and 8250 lbs in 1944, and the corresponding figures given for the US AAF were 3,220 lb and 3,980 lb respectively." http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r_m_g.v...Offensive.html Can you expand on your statement JoeA?
|
|
#46
10-08-2008, 12:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The cabinate makers, carpenters, Piano makers etc. that made components for the Mosquito didn't have to compete for production with the other types being built. The production of a competitive aircraft that didn't effect the other types shows good ingenuity, engineering and manpower management. That being said, we only have to look at the early stages of the war and the Battle of Britain to show how ineffective medium/light bombers are in a strategic roll. When the LW rolled accross Europe and when they were concentrating on the British airfield's their medium bomber aircraft (JU87's, Do17's and HE111's) excelled in a tactical roll. When they switched tactics and started attacking area targets (London for example) They just didn't have the bombloads to do the job. (This statement is not trying to detract from the damage and loss of life caused by the medium bombers) They were using a weapon in a role it was not intended and therefore it made it harder to do the job. Luckly Hitler was so focused on his early Bitzkrieg victories that he stymied the development of the Heavy bombers that Germany needed. The Mosquito was a fantastic plane - BUT - only in the role it was intended for. If you can imagine the planning and logistics that would have gone into one of the British maximum effort, 1000 bombers raids and then multiplied that by 3 and a 1/2, I doubt Britain (or any other airforce at the time) would have been able to pull it off.
|
|
#47
10-08-2008, 09:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It did everything by night or by day from ground attack to high level bombing to anti shipping to being a night fighter (and a number of other roles). It even passed its carrier trials. The only thing it couldn't excel at was being a dive bomber, pure fighter or interceptor (unless you count V1's) but it pretty much covered every other role imaginable and better than most designs intended for those roles. It was probably the first true multirole combat aircraft that could operate by night or by day.
|
|
#48
10-08-2008, 11:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Cheers!
|
|
#49
10-08-2008, 01:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No Skoshi it couldn't carry the load a Lancaster could but it did carry a load comparable to the American heavies.
|
|
#50
10-08-2008, 02:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
My books put the disposable stores at something like Mosquito -early marque 2000lbs later models ('44 onwards) 4000lbs B25 Mitchell -3,200lbs B26 Marauder - 4,000lbs A20 Havoc - 4,000lbs A26/B26 Invader - 6,000lbs He111 - 7,165lbs B24 Liberator - 8,800lbs B17 -17,600lbs Lancaster - 18,000 Now in my interpretation the Heavies would be the B17, Lancaster and maybe B24 Liberator. The Mosquito definately fits into the first group which would be described as attack or maybe medium (at a pinch) bombers. Also those figures quoted are maximum bomb loads and doesn't state what carrying those maximum loads did to their speed or altitude. In the case of the Mosquito (without any defensive armerment) both of these were it's key to it's survival. Now the Mosquito is one of my favourite planes. I find that talking up it's abilities detracts from it's beauty and the roles it served so well at. Cheers!
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
