Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik

IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-08-2008, 12:55 AM
Skoshi Tiger Skoshi Tiger is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeA View Post
Isn't this all a moot point as the Mossie was so difficult (comparatively speaking) and time-consuming to build?
Even though you needed a skilled workforce to build a Mosquito, the skill set required (for building the airframe at least) was different from the other aircraft in production.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-08-2008, 09:27 AM
mondo mondo is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger View Post

The Mosquito was a fantastic plane - BUT - only in the role it was intended for.
Thats not true. It excelled in allot of different roles. It was only initially intended as a fast bomber but in fact was an outstanding plane in a number of different roles it was never intended for use in. It was probably the most versatile aircraft of WW2.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-08-2008, 11:27 AM
Skoshi Tiger Skoshi Tiger is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mondo View Post
Thats not true. It excelled in allot of different roles. It was only initially intended as a fast bomber but in fact was an outstanding plane in a number of different roles it was never intended for use in. It was probably the most versatile aircraft of WW2.

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.
My mistake, I should have said "roles" instead of "role". One thing it was never designed to do (nor any of it's various marks and it would have been quite inadequate at) was strategic bombing which was the role of the big 4 engined bombers that could carry a bomb load that could do the job.

Cheers!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-08-2008, 01:22 PM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

No Skoshi it couldn't carry the load a Lancaster could but it did carry a load comparable to the American heavies.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-08-2008, 02:22 PM
Skoshi Tiger Skoshi Tiger is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Schlageter View Post
No Skoshi it couldn't carry the load a Lancaster could but it did carry a load comparable to the American heavies.
Al, maybe were using a different interpretation of the word "Heavies".

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!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-08-2008, 02:44 PM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

Typical bomb load in the ETO.

B-17 - 5000lb (B-24 similar)
Lancaster - 9-10,000lb

There was also a bomb rack designed for the Mossie, though not used, that had 3000lb (6x500lb) in the bomb bay.

Americans classified the B-17/B-24 as heavy bombers and the B-28 as very heavy bombers. The B-26/B-25 are classed as medium bombers.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-09-2008, 02:14 AM
Skoshi Tiger Skoshi Tiger is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Schlageter View Post
the B-28 as very heavy bombers. .
I am unfamiliar with this type. Do you mean B29?

On the same track a Mosquito would typically carry less than its maximum bomb load.

Mosquito carrying a single 4000lb bomb would be great in a tactical role, lets say taking out a Bridge, but if we were going for an stategic area target, like an industrial complex, B17's with 12x500 (or greater) would be much more appropriate.

The milliary planners in WWII weren't idiots. If a weapon system didn't live up to it's requirements it was dumped at the first opportunity.

The reason we didn't see great fleets of Mosquitos doing the job of planes like the B17 was that it couldn't do the job required as efficiently.

Last edited by Skoshi Tiger; 10-09-2008 at 05:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.