Spits and Mossies only?
Tornado F3/GR1/4
But then there is the F4 Phantom - bomber, fighter, wild weasel and target drone (one of its better uses!
)LJ
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
What that argument overlooks is the Mozzie didn't arrive till 1942 and the Lanc likewise.
If the choice was limited to extant aircraft in 1940, what if the Wimpy or Whirlwind?
If the choice was limited to extant aircraft in 1940, what if the Wimpy or Whirlwind?
The other thing one has to remember is that we, in the future, have the benefit of hindsight knowing that the axis failed to develop something to counter either of the 2 a/c (mkV/IX vs FW190 not withstanding). At the time the powers that be had no such luxury so it was probably wise to keep all the arrows in one's quiver (so to speak).
As an example, the mossie relied on speed for defence. If that then is the main problem for the axis, and they develop a radar-equipped jet-powered night fighter, then, politely, you're buggered and have nowhere to go. By having a full spectrum of aircraft you give the enemy a variety of problems to counter and something to fall back on yourself.
As an example, the mossie relied on speed for defence. If that then is the main problem for the axis, and they develop a radar-equipped jet-powered night fighter, then, politely, you're buggered and have nowhere to go. By having a full spectrum of aircraft you give the enemy a variety of problems to counter and something to fall back on yourself.
I am late on this one and having read through, I can still add my bit.
It has been mentioned before here re the Mosquito being made available in greater quantities.
The biggest issue was that the Mossie was actually built a bit like a 'Cottage Industry'. Piano workshops, coach builders, furniture manufacturers , small carpentry workshops all played their part. There was not sufficient trained 'craftsman' available.
Industry was geared up for heavy bomber production and that was how it was going to remain. Throughout the war it was deemed better to produce what we had in quantity than interfere with production. Two cases in point were the modifications to the Halifax rudder, which HP originally refused to do because it would interfere with production schedules. Secondly a revised Short Stirling was on paper a much better proposition than the Lancaster, but again it was deemed preferable to continue with what we had.
Another view is that even if we had had an all out Mossie force, then the Germans would have adapted their defences and produced faster types to counter it. They already had special versions of the Me410 and nitrous oxide versions of the Ju88 to combat it.
It has been mentioned before here re the Mosquito being made available in greater quantities.
The biggest issue was that the Mossie was actually built a bit like a 'Cottage Industry'. Piano workshops, coach builders, furniture manufacturers , small carpentry workshops all played their part. There was not sufficient trained 'craftsman' available.
Industry was geared up for heavy bomber production and that was how it was going to remain. Throughout the war it was deemed better to produce what we had in quantity than interfere with production. Two cases in point were the modifications to the Halifax rudder, which HP originally refused to do because it would interfere with production schedules. Secondly a revised Short Stirling was on paper a much better proposition than the Lancaster, but again it was deemed preferable to continue with what we had.
Another view is that even if we had had an all out Mossie force, then the Germans would have adapted their defences and produced faster types to counter it. They already had special versions of the Me410 and nitrous oxide versions of the Ju88 to combat it.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Germans did try to develop 4 engine strategic bombers. Fortunately, military production had become a political football by 1942 and their procurement shenanigans make Wokka Mk3 and FRES look positively successful.
See Ju290 and the various "Amerika Bombers".
See Ju290 and the various "Amerika Bombers".
Despite the issues with its structure in the Far East, the Mossie still had a pretty effective combat record.
The early structural failures were found to be a combination of poor mate-up of some structural elemants & poor gluing practices leading to failed glue joints. This was most apparent among Far East aircraft after prolonged outdoor storage. It was also apparent that swelling of the top skin could lead to the securing screws pulling through. Examination of ETO aircraft found a much lower prevalence of joint defects and no skin lifting. Further testing and investigation done in India identified 2 main issues, the wing spar scarf joints and the spar boom joints with the plywood skin and other ply elements, leading to the lifting of the surface plywood skin.
As a result, Mod 638 was adopted which added a spanwise plywood strip to seal the upper surface skin joint along the length of the front spar. Adoption of aluminium dope finish to Far East theatre aircraft was also adopted in 1945 to help.
This improved things greatly, although the combination of heat and water soakage in the tropics causing shrinkage and swelling, did still plague Mossie ops well in the mid 50’s.
The early structural failures were found to be a combination of poor mate-up of some structural elemants & poor gluing practices leading to failed glue joints. This was most apparent among Far East aircraft after prolonged outdoor storage. It was also apparent that swelling of the top skin could lead to the securing screws pulling through. Examination of ETO aircraft found a much lower prevalence of joint defects and no skin lifting. Further testing and investigation done in India identified 2 main issues, the wing spar scarf joints and the spar boom joints with the plywood skin and other ply elements, leading to the lifting of the surface plywood skin.
As a result, Mod 638 was adopted which added a spanwise plywood strip to seal the upper surface skin joint along the length of the front spar. Adoption of aluminium dope finish to Far East theatre aircraft was also adopted in 1945 to help.
This improved things greatly, although the combination of heat and water soakage in the tropics causing shrinkage and swelling, did still plague Mossie ops well in the mid 50’s.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not for the tropics
As Gee Ram says the wooden construction did not stand up well to being left in the open in tropical conditions, recently I looked at a light aircraft was of more or less the same type of construction as the Mossie, after two years outside storage you could put your fist through the main spar as it had the strength of wet cardboard, IMO glue failure was not usually a Mossie problem as it is the wood that seems to fail first when using Aerolite & aerodux glues, glue failure was a common problem with earlier glues that aircraft such as the Magister employed.
The aircraft was a write off but the fuselage is now in service with an air cadet unit as the basis for a flight simulator.
Returning to the subject I think that the only major error during ww2 was the balance between the numbers of Mossies and the four engine types. More Mossies and less four engine aircraft would have reduced the appalling crew loss rate but the four engine types could do jobs that the Mossie could not and so there was a large requirement for these.
The aircraft was a write off but the fuselage is now in service with an air cadet unit as the basis for a flight simulator.
Returning to the subject I think that the only major error during ww2 was the balance between the numbers of Mossies and the four engine types. More Mossies and less four engine aircraft would have reduced the appalling crew loss rate but the four engine types could do jobs that the Mossie could not and so there was a large requirement for these.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,555
Likes: 0
Received 41 Likes
on
28 Posts
"I read an interesting article about the Lanc a while ago. The Lanc would have been about 50 mph faster without any turrets and their associated weight, ammo, drag etc. Plus it would have had two less crew. Someone far cleverer than me (that's everyone then) applied their statistical minds to it and worked out that far less Lancs and crew would have been lost had it been produced sans turrets."
..and this of course was the crew used for the Vulcan (co-pilot replaced the FE and the BA renamed as "radar nav") where speed and height precluded the need for self defence. The problem with "de-arming" the Lanc was that it was felt that the weight saving would not be used for height and speed but to carry extra fuel and weapons load as in the late war "specials". Another thought was to remove the guns/ammunition and just to have look-out positions (akin to the later Shackletons) as good lookout probably saved more aircraft than shooting down an attacker, bearing in mind that the Lanc had .303 MG compared to the night-fighters' 20mm cannon.
..and this of course was the crew used for the Vulcan (co-pilot replaced the FE and the BA renamed as "radar nav") where speed and height precluded the need for self defence. The problem with "de-arming" the Lanc was that it was felt that the weight saving would not be used for height and speed but to carry extra fuel and weapons load as in the late war "specials". Another thought was to remove the guns/ammunition and just to have look-out positions (akin to the later Shackletons) as good lookout probably saved more aircraft than shooting down an attacker, bearing in mind that the Lanc had .303 MG compared to the night-fighters' 20mm cannon.
Re tactical v strategic - the Soviets had a highly effective tactical air force which contributed greatly to the Red Army's relentless Westward progress in the last year of the war. The downside was their almost complete absence of a strategic bombing capability meant they contributed very little to the airborne destruction of German industrial targets, a fact that is glossed over in the standard Russian version of how they won the Great Patriotic War.
Last edited by Tankertrashnav; 6th Jul 2015 at 15:53.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Over 13,500 Halifax and Lancaster and 6,700 were built. Now assuming fewer heavies and more light bombers were built what might that mean?
Swop the numbers around. You could have had 1,000 Mozzie raids and presumably less losses. Your heavies might have sustained the same percentage loss and the attrition replacement rate. It would appear there would have been fewer aircrew lost.
However, faced with 1,000 bomber raids by the heavies the German air defence would have been optimised for the greater threat. If that threat had been from faster bombers at greater heights then you could assume a high altitude defence would have been a higher priority.
The defence might have evolved to include rockets, missiles, and more jets and rocket AC.
Swop the numbers around. You could have had 1,000 Mozzie raids and presumably less losses. Your heavies might have sustained the same percentage loss and the attrition replacement rate. It would appear there would have been fewer aircrew lost.
However, faced with 1,000 bomber raids by the heavies the German air defence would have been optimised for the greater threat. If that threat had been from faster bombers at greater heights then you could assume a high altitude defence would have been a higher priority.
The defence might have evolved to include rockets, missiles, and more jets and rocket AC.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TTN, you make a salient point. The Soviets didn't need a strategic bomber force, that job was being provided by the US/UK. The USSR provided the 'boots on the ground.'
It was a team effort. No single nation 'won' WW2.
It was a team effort. No single nation 'won' WW2.
It was Freeman Dyson who suggested that turrets be removed. ( I have quoted him several times on here re that subject in the recent past).
As Wensleydale has said no doubt the bombers would have been made to carry more tonnage to the enemy, thus cancelling the advantage that the weight/aerodynamic savings made. Some Bombers were stripped of all their armour plate to carry more tonnage, despite the pleas of the crews. It must be remembered that 'Tonnage ladders' were published and it was a competition between Squadrons/Groups to see who could deliver the most. I daresay many a senior promotion was won on that data and one wonders at what cost to aircrew lives?
Bomber doctrine ment that gunners and turrets would not be removed, as it was of great psychological value. Later in the war Dysons team interviewed evaders to get an idea of how they were shot down. The information they got was of limited value, they never saw a fighter, just a burst of cannon fire, then the bomber on fire around them. They had not realised that the bomber was a victim of Schrage Musik.
As Wensleydale has said no doubt the bombers would have been made to carry more tonnage to the enemy, thus cancelling the advantage that the weight/aerodynamic savings made. Some Bombers were stripped of all their armour plate to carry more tonnage, despite the pleas of the crews. It must be remembered that 'Tonnage ladders' were published and it was a competition between Squadrons/Groups to see who could deliver the most. I daresay many a senior promotion was won on that data and one wonders at what cost to aircrew lives?
Bomber doctrine ment that gunners and turrets would not be removed, as it was of great psychological value. Later in the war Dysons team interviewed evaders to get an idea of how they were shot down. The information they got was of limited value, they never saw a fighter, just a burst of cannon fire, then the bomber on fire around them. They had not realised that the bomber was a victim of Schrage Musik.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,555
Likes: 0
Received 41 Likes
on
28 Posts
There was also debate leading to different tactics between 1 and 5 Groups....I don't remember which group did which, but one of the groups used a greater bomb load and fewer aircraft to get the tasked weight of explosives onto target. The argument was that although you lost a higher percentage of aircraft because of their reduced manoeuvrability due to increased weight, there were less aircraft to attack and therefore number of aircraft/lives lost on each target was actually less. This did not help the crews of course, because they still had to fly their 30 Ops to complete a tour and the percentages of loss were higher on each of their missions - its just that because a tour took longer, statistically they lived longer before being shot down.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
While a 10% attrition would be 10 losses per 100 and 100 per thousand, it was never that simple.
Defence saturation reduces the number of potential successful attacks so the loss rate reduces as numbers increase, admittedly the collision risk increases.
On the Halifax/Lancaster argument, it was said that it was easier to bail out from a Halifax.
Defence saturation reduces the number of potential successful attacks so the loss rate reduces as numbers increase, admittedly the collision risk increases.
On the Halifax/Lancaster argument, it was said that it was easier to bail out from a Halifax.
Pontius, Freeman Dyson again. He and members of his team (Mike O'Loughlin) found that the Lancaster main escape hatch was 2 inches smaller than the Halifax. This he estimated cost 10,000 lives! They tried to get Bomber Command to address the issue, but the war was practically over by the time they did. He came to the conclusion Bomber Command just didn't care. (Although Harris did try to implement changes, I guess it comes back to what I mentioned earlier Officialdoms reticence to interrupt production)
The Halifax was a lot sturdier in construction. The Lancaster had a tendency to break up in flight, one of the reasons why 68% of Lancaster losses had no survivors. 25% of shot down Halifax crews survived, compared with 15% of Lancasters.
The Halifax was a lot sturdier in construction. The Lancaster had a tendency to break up in flight, one of the reasons why 68% of Lancaster losses had no survivors. 25% of shot down Halifax crews survived, compared with 15% of Lancasters.
Last edited by rolling20; 6th Jul 2015 at 14:20.
Quite correct Hempy. But having been to Russia and attended lectures on the Great Patriotic War, a little recognition of the allied efforts wouldnt come amiss. When I asked a history lecturer who had just given us the party line on the heroic actions of the Red Army what she thought of US/ British/Commonwealth contribution in the West I was basically blanked. Mind you, maybe she didn't understand my Russian!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks megan, that's a great clip from Christie's, including lovely air-to-air footage and with some interesting background info. Unfortunately however, my credit card's busy on 9th July, so I'll be unable to attend the auction!
