Spits and Mossies only?
Thread Starter
Spits and Mossies only?
I remember reading a long time ago (I can't remember where) the idea that the RAF would have been better fighting WW2 with just combat two types: Spitfires and Mossies.
It is an obviously flawed idea but I am intrigued by the thought of how the bomber campaign would have worked out with just Mossies rather than the heavies.
Very low loss rates for Mossies (at night) would have been attractive.
perhaps we could have maintained a much larger number of aircraft on ops. I assume the tactics would have changed from area bombing as I'd expect they could have bombed from lower altitude.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
TR
It is an obviously flawed idea but I am intrigued by the thought of how the bomber campaign would have worked out with just Mossies rather than the heavies.
Very low loss rates for Mossies (at night) would have been attractive.
perhaps we could have maintained a much larger number of aircraft on ops. I assume the tactics would have changed from area bombing as I'd expect they could have bombed from lower altitude.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
TR
The first problem I see with the Mossie solution is weight of delivery, how many more aircraft would have been needed?
The argument of precision only works with detailed target information which would have required far more detailed intelligence.
The argument of precision only works with detailed target information which would have required far more detailed intelligence.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could understand the efficiency regarding the Merlins and aircrew - however as others have said, the precision type raids echo more modern mindsets and technologies than existed in WWII.
Perhaps if they had had a BL755 equivalent munition, this may have proved some use over troops and vehicles.
The Mosquito was an effective weapon on Coatal duties as well if I remember correctly, even though it wasn't a Beau.
Perhaps if they had had a BL755 equivalent munition, this may have proved some use over troops and vehicles.
The Mosquito was an effective weapon on Coatal duties as well if I remember correctly, even though it wasn't a Beau.
Thread Starter
PB,
I think you would be surprised how much it could carry and how far.
Especially at night when it does not need to use speed as a defence to the same degree.
Bomb load and range compare pretty well with B-17s
I think you would be surprised how much it could carry and how far.
Especially at night when it does not need to use speed as a defence to the same degree.
Bomb load and range compare pretty well with B-17s
TR,
Unfortunately Spitfire did not have the legs of the Packard Merlin powered P51D Mustang so fighter sweeps into Germany would have been difficult before the invasion. The change from 8 machine guns to a mixture of cannons and machine guns was a big step forward. the initial introduction of the FW 190A spurred the development of the Mk9, probably the greatest variant as the Mk 5 had to have clipped wings and cropped superchargers to try to maintain some parity. All in all I believe that the Spitfire was the finest fighter of its generation, but there again I'm biased.
Mosquito's did have the equivalent bomb load of the B17 and the range, just it did not have the capacity to go up to the bomb load on a Lancaster with 12,000 and 22,000lb Tallboy and Grand Slam respectively. The main problem with the Mosquito was it could could not really be deployed in places of heat humidity and believe it or not termites, the Beaufighter served in these places. The speed and agility and as precision low level bomber was unmatched in WW2 and the Luftwaffe even produced a version of the FW 190 in the form of the FW TA152 to try to combat the Mosquito, albeit unsuccessfully. Goering was forever raging about the Mosquito ability to reach Berlin and drop bombs.
For longer range maritime operations, the Sunderland and Liberator came into their own, as the Mosquito could carry out anti-shipping strikes using the Teste modification, but the main aircraft was the Beaufighter and the Beaufort.
All combat aircraft have good and bad points, the Mosquito had range speed and operational height but was a very difficult to land with only one engine and many crew were killed, but when you consider it was a fighter, night fighter, precision bomber, area bomber, pathfinder and anti-shipping strike, then it was a damn fine aircraft, sort of a Tornado F3/GR1/4 today. Combat aircraft is a case of horses for courses and in the words of General Le May 'you can only go to war with what you have on the day.'
Looks as if we are all of the same thoughts up to now, unusual on here.
Unfortunately Spitfire did not have the legs of the Packard Merlin powered P51D Mustang so fighter sweeps into Germany would have been difficult before the invasion. The change from 8 machine guns to a mixture of cannons and machine guns was a big step forward. the initial introduction of the FW 190A spurred the development of the Mk9, probably the greatest variant as the Mk 5 had to have clipped wings and cropped superchargers to try to maintain some parity. All in all I believe that the Spitfire was the finest fighter of its generation, but there again I'm biased.
Mosquito's did have the equivalent bomb load of the B17 and the range, just it did not have the capacity to go up to the bomb load on a Lancaster with 12,000 and 22,000lb Tallboy and Grand Slam respectively. The main problem with the Mosquito was it could could not really be deployed in places of heat humidity and believe it or not termites, the Beaufighter served in these places. The speed and agility and as precision low level bomber was unmatched in WW2 and the Luftwaffe even produced a version of the FW 190 in the form of the FW TA152 to try to combat the Mosquito, albeit unsuccessfully. Goering was forever raging about the Mosquito ability to reach Berlin and drop bombs.
For longer range maritime operations, the Sunderland and Liberator came into their own, as the Mosquito could carry out anti-shipping strikes using the Teste modification, but the main aircraft was the Beaufighter and the Beaufort.
All combat aircraft have good and bad points, the Mosquito had range speed and operational height but was a very difficult to land with only one engine and many crew were killed, but when you consider it was a fighter, night fighter, precision bomber, area bomber, pathfinder and anti-shipping strike, then it was a damn fine aircraft, sort of a Tornado F3/GR1/4 today. Combat aircraft is a case of horses for courses and in the words of General Le May 'you can only go to war with what you have on the day.'
Looks as if we are all of the same thoughts up to now, unusual on here.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 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.
Regarding the Mossie performance it also had a high Vmca at operational take off weights which sadly caught a few crew out, and I believe the Beaufort was an absolute dog of an aircraft all round.
Regarding the Mossie performance it also had a high Vmca at operational take off weights which sadly caught a few crew out, and I believe the Beaufort was an absolute dog of an aircraft all round.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Horses for Courses.
air pig,
Your: "Unfortunately Spitfire did not have the legs of the Packard Merlin powered P51D Mustang so fighter sweeps into Germany would have been difficult......"
Perhaps it would be better (for the uninitiated) to point out that both aircraft had almost identical engines (Rolls Merlins 60 series in the Spit IX, of which the Packard Merlin was the US-built version which went into the P-51D); it [as the Mk.266] also powered the post-war Spit XVI, which was no more than a re-engined IX. (One-third of all the 150,000 Merlins built were by Packard) - [Wiki].
The P-51 "had the legs of" the IX simply because it carried so much more fuel, the engine had nothing to do with it. The Spitfire was designed for the defence of Britain: it was never intended to go to Berlin. Consequently, fully loaded, the P-51 was almost 2,000 lbs heavier than the Spit IX. The Mk.V was no match for the FW 190, we had to wait for the M.IX to achieve parity.
"All in all I believe that the Spitfire was the finest fighter of its generation, but there again I'm biased"....Join the club ! Sadly, after doing my OTU on Mk.Is and IIs in '42, I was sent to India, where there were no Spits at the time, and never touched them again until returning to the RAF in '49, after which I flew Mks. XIV, XVI (mostly) and XXII until '51, which was pretty well the end.
Danny42C (a Liverpudlian from '21 to '41 !).
Your: "Unfortunately Spitfire did not have the legs of the Packard Merlin powered P51D Mustang so fighter sweeps into Germany would have been difficult......"
Perhaps it would be better (for the uninitiated) to point out that both aircraft had almost identical engines (Rolls Merlins 60 series in the Spit IX, of which the Packard Merlin was the US-built version which went into the P-51D); it [as the Mk.266] also powered the post-war Spit XVI, which was no more than a re-engined IX. (One-third of all the 150,000 Merlins built were by Packard) - [Wiki].
The P-51 "had the legs of" the IX simply because it carried so much more fuel, the engine had nothing to do with it. The Spitfire was designed for the defence of Britain: it was never intended to go to Berlin. Consequently, fully loaded, the P-51 was almost 2,000 lbs heavier than the Spit IX. The Mk.V was no match for the FW 190, we had to wait for the M.IX to achieve parity.
"All in all I believe that the Spitfire was the finest fighter of its generation, but there again I'm biased"....Join the club ! Sadly, after doing my OTU on Mk.Is and IIs in '42, I was sent to India, where there were no Spits at the time, and never touched them again until returning to the RAF in '49, after which I flew Mks. XIV, XVI (mostly) and XXII until '51, which was pretty well the end.
Danny42C (a Liverpudlian from '21 to '41 !).
Just Spits, Mossies & Lancaster?
While we're playing "what if?" ...
Optional fuselage tank for longer-range Spit?
Lancaster with rear turret, but optional front/mid turrets (needed for LRMP?)
Still need decent transport, communication, training, ground attack, etc aircraft
cheers
layman
Optional fuselage tank for longer-range Spit?
Lancaster with rear turret, but optional front/mid turrets (needed for LRMP?)
Still need decent transport, communication, training, ground attack, etc aircraft
cheers
layman
Guest
Posts: n/a
hempy,
Your #8: "I'm pretty sure the Germans tried to go down the 'tactical only' route".
The Japanese Army command in Burma were similarly blinkered. Although they had a number of the excellent Nakajima "Oscars" (almost unknown now), which were (on paper) at least as good as their better known marine counterparts, the "Zeros", at their disposal, they frittered them away on "hit and run" LL attacks on opportunity targets.
Their main effort was directed against our airfields (most of these were just "kutcha"strips bulldozed out of the paddy-fields). As our aircraft were always well dispersed, they did little damage. Whereas, if they'd have put them up to 10-12,000 over the ground battle areas, and waited for a box of our six VVS to come along, they would have got rich pickings.
Right to the end, this never occurred to them (AFAIK), which was just as well for us. "Why not" was another of the many unsolved mysteries of war.
Danny.
Your #8: "I'm pretty sure the Germans tried to go down the 'tactical only' route".
The Japanese Army command in Burma were similarly blinkered. Although they had a number of the excellent Nakajima "Oscars" (almost unknown now), which were (on paper) at least as good as their better known marine counterparts, the "Zeros", at their disposal, they frittered them away on "hit and run" LL attacks on opportunity targets.
Their main effort was directed against our airfields (most of these were just "kutcha"strips bulldozed out of the paddy-fields). As our aircraft were always well dispersed, they did little damage. Whereas, if they'd have put them up to 10-12,000 over the ground battle areas, and waited for a box of our six VVS to come along, they would have got rich pickings.
Right to the end, this never occurred to them (AFAIK), which was just as well for us. "Why not" was another of the many unsolved mysteries of war.
Danny.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by typerated
That it is more about target choice than airframe.
Heavy bombers were used strategically for a reason. They were optimised for the role. They could penetrate heavy enemy ground and air defenses, take a heap of punishment, and still fulfil the mission objectives and get the crews home.
Light bombers/tactical ground attack aircraft were used tactically for 'bombing tanks' etc because they were optimised for that role. Using a Lancaster would have been a complete misallocation of resources and would have produced poorer results.
As would have a Mosquito bombing Dresden.
No talk about the Mossies that had structural issues in the tropics and the Med.
The late Bill Warterton, RAAF, DFC, flew Mossies in the Med area and told me of several 'coming apart' in the air and he said that put the wind up the crews much more than the enemy...
The late Bill Warterton, RAAF, DFC, flew Mossies in the Med area and told me of several 'coming apart' in the air and he said that put the wind up the crews much more than the enemy...
Thread Starter
Hempy,
Yes I disagree - history showed the Mossie is much more survivable getting to a target at night than a Lancaster - faster than the night fighters. They did a certain amount of work at night as well as pathfinding - very successfully.
BTW, Lancasters were very successful bombing tactically in the breakout from Normandy
Yes I disagree - history showed the Mossie is much more survivable getting to a target at night than a Lancaster - faster than the night fighters. They did a certain amount of work at night as well as pathfinding - very successfully.
BTW, Lancasters were very successful bombing tactically in the breakout from Normandy
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
My late father was based in Aden just after the war and he told me that the glue used to construct Mosquitos was failing out there in the heat.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a fun what if, but is ahistorical: we now know that, with constant techno-evolution - in kit as much as in the platform - these 2 types remained operationally effective into 1945...but those tasked with applying UK's industrial and financial resources in 1938/39 to Defence did not know that. In June, 1940 what they did know was that too many munitions plants were about to be Heinkel-hammered, that much of the Air Production Programme was, ah, wrong: Westland Whirlwind, Blackburn Botha, Saro Lerwick, everything to be carrier-borne...and that 1936's decision to prioritise investment in Bloody Paralysers had produced exactly nothing.
We were blessed with luck that: Merlin and Hercules came good from shadow sites that were only modestly bombed (all UK Merlin crankshafts came off very few machine tools); and that a force of factory-fresh labour, inexperienced in production of anything, subject mostly to random-batch Inspection, could produce fit kit after walking in bleary-eyed over rubble. That kit was made serviceable by and operated by very young men who could not drive a car, many could not ride a bike. It was kit-in-hand plus motivation that did the business. If only with Hurricane+Halifax, they would probably have done (nearly) as good.
We were blessed with luck that: Merlin and Hercules came good from shadow sites that were only modestly bombed (all UK Merlin crankshafts came off very few machine tools); and that a force of factory-fresh labour, inexperienced in production of anything, subject mostly to random-batch Inspection, could produce fit kit after walking in bleary-eyed over rubble. That kit was made serviceable by and operated by very young men who could not drive a car, many could not ride a bike. It was kit-in-hand plus motivation that did the business. If only with Hurricane+Halifax, they would probably have done (nearly) as good.