The Mosquito, capabilities under-estimated?

I thought this would be of interest and pertinent to the discussion.

Very much so.

You can see that the bomb bay was originally intended for just four 250lb. bombs. They were able to accommodate 4 x 500 lb. bombs by cropping the vanes. But look at the Small Bomb Containers. Only two of the smallest variety can be fitted. Not much use when you’re trying to burn Berlin to the ground.

That the 4000 lb. Blast Bomb could be accommodated by bulging the bomb bay was useful, but it seems the limiting factor wasn’t weight but dimensions.

I was under the impression that because a 4000lb ‘cookie’ could be carried a mosquito was capable of carrying four 1000lb bombs but this would seem not to be the case.

As you say the greatest proportion of damage to German cities was done by fire rather than by explosives; they were burn-down not blown-up. It was also important as part of the plan that the bombloads arrived in the shortest possible time so that the thousands of 4lb incendiary bombs taking advantage of the roof, door and window damage caused by the 4000lb blast-bombs would saturate fire service (and homeowner) prevention efforts. I doubt very much that the 4lb bombs would land anywhere near where the 4000lb bomb did?

So the similar sort of damage could have been done and even with a loss rate the same as heavy bombers 5 aircrew could have been saved?

I think that is unlikely given the information above about the small number of incendiaries the mosquito could carry.

Why Heavies, not Speed Bombers?

Timing. 1935 saw Germany’s repudiation of Versailles Disarmament clauses; RAF Expansion Scheme ‘C’; Baldwin’s Election win leading to the funding of Rearmament; the techno evolutions that led to Big Power, Big Spars, and thus the 1936 Specs that became R&D funded as Warwick, Supermarine T.317, Stirling, Halifax and Manchester. April,1938 saw Chamberlain accepting the cost of turning UK’s general engineering capability into munitions shadows (e.g: Austin Stirling and Lancaster, Rootes and London Bus Halifax). May,1940 had Beaver giving priority to Medium Bombers Blenheim, Wellington, Hampden, but by late-September resources were applied to Stirling, Halifax and (to be) Lancaster because these types were well in hand from 1936 design effort. Contemplate the sunk investment in training multi-trade crews.

Biplane-centric DH had missed out on all this and had covered themselves in ordure on Don. Their 1939 pitch for an unarmed Speed Bomber was seen as industrially incredible, but AM W.Freeman caused CiC Bomber Command to requisition a Light Recce Bomber (emphasis on recce), ordered 1/3/40 (this and Griffon/Sabre, in A.Furse, W.Freeman, Spellmount,2000,P.124). Support for a bomber came in July,1941 and Production Groups were organised from resources not otherwise consumed on metal-working or on the assault glider programmes. The intent was to supplement, not to displace Heavies, which were to get on with paralysing NOW please. The Strategic Bombing Campaign had been invested in as the Second Front: any Paper suggesting the 4-Motors be dumped to make way for a balsa type from a ragwing house would not have been welcome.

I thought this would be of interest and pertinent to the discussion. It’s from the Mosquito B IX manual and therefore representative of a mid-late wartime Mosquito bomber.

You can see that the bomb bay was originally intended for just four 250lb. bombs. They were able to accommodate 4 x 500 lb. bombs by cropping the vanes. But look at the Small Bomb Containers. Only two of the smallest variety can be fitted. Not much use when you’re trying to burn Berlin to the ground.

That the 4000 lb. Blast Bomb could be accommodated by bulging the bomb bay was useful, but it seems the limiting factor wasn’t weight but dimensions. A re-design of the whole aeroplane would have been necessary to turn it into an Area Bomber.

[QUOTE The wing also is a very complex bit of work, and there were an enormous number of metal fittings used in the aircraft’s overall construction. [/QUOTE]

Do I remember 30,000 brass screws per wing.

I shall never forget the shock I got when I saw one in the process of scrapping. It had been sawn in two immediately behind the wings and the sight of that wooden tube, which was all that held the tail on, appalled me.

I now knew why my pilot would put his leg against the tailcone and attempt to flex it laterally and vertically during his preflight checks. I very often walked round with him because I had to wait for him to climb the ladder before I could.

Graham, I’m at [email]stephwilkinson@verizon.net[/email] if you ever do want to “talk Falcos.”

AdlerTag
Rank 4 Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Adlam
I doubt the skill to make them would be an issue considering that aircraft right up until 1939 were nearly all made of wood. The Spitfire was a very difficult aircraft to build and they managed to turn out 20K plus of those.
Although the Mossie was made of wood, it wasn’t exactly your standard wooden aircraft. There’s always the suggestion that the Mossie was made of wood and so would have been easy to build, but the truth is that it was a complex beastie that used all sorts of cutting edge moulding and bonding techniques.

I built a very high-performance airplane–a Falco F8L–of wood, and in fact I used the very same glue that was used in the Mosquito: Resorcinol. My Falco also used the same “cutting-edge moulding and bonding techniques” that were used on the Mosquito, mainly substantial scarfing of wood panels and steam bending of same.

I doubt I could have built a Spitfire in my barn in New York.

First and foremost, congratulations on your Falco! While I’d love to talk Falco’s, we have trouble with thread drift on these forums, so I better stick to Mosquito’s!

Although the Falco is an impressive piece of wood work, it’s still nothing like as labour intensive as a Mosquito. By cutting edge, what I meant was that the moulding of the fuselage shells was something new, and something which had to be extensively tooled up for, and the workforce newly trained. The wing also is a very complex bit of work, and there were an enormous number of metal fittings used in the aircraft’s overall construction. We have a forum moderator here who is heavily involved with the Mosquito Museum at London Colney, so hopefully he’ll be able to fill in the technical details better than I can, but the basic point is that the Mosquito’s wooden construction didn’t necessarily equate to simplicity.

So the similar sort of damage could have been done and even with a loss rate the same as heavy bombers 5 aircrew could have been saved….. ??

Arc

Jericho was a Low Level raid…

No, absolutely, but I think we need to separate low-level-precision and high-level-area-bombing (with low loss rate).

The loss rate for LNSF Mosquitos was low but the bombing accuracy was no better than the heavies (excepting limited Oboe guidance).

Like 80% on the Augsburg raid…………..

Arc

.

And ‘Operation Jericho’ losses were two out of eighteen (11%); a loss rate that would have been a disaster for the main force!

Jericho was a Low Level raid…the losses for a low level raid by ‘Heavies ‘ would be much higher…

If you had access to a fast, pinpoint strike aircraft that could even knock down targets like prison walls – why continue throwing hundreds of heavies night after night if Mossies could have accomplised the job?

Or as someone has suggested, would Mossie losses have climbed to match the main force..?

I think we have to be careful turning the ‘wooden wonder’ into a wonder weapon!

Precision attacks in daylight are one thing, using the mosquito at night is quite another. Mosquito attacks on Berlin were ‘nuisance’ raids (although the Germans didn’t think them so), area-bombing a big sprawling city with no intention or hope of causing significant damage to industry; the aim was to sound the sirens and get the population to spend another uncomfortable night (forty to fifty nights in a row at one point) in the shelters.

Oboe bombing with limited numbers of Mosquito was a different matter.

And ‘Operation Jericho’ losses were two out of eighteen (11%); a loss rate that would have been a disaster for the main force!

Mmmmmm. Love those Falcos

Moggy

AdlerTag
Rank 4 Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Adlam
I doubt the skill to make them would be an issue considering that aircraft right up until 1939 were nearly all made of wood. The Spitfire was a very difficult aircraft to build and they managed to turn out 20K plus of those.
Although the Mossie was made of wood, it wasn’t exactly your standard wooden aircraft. There’s always the suggestion that the Mossie was made of wood and so would have been easy to build, but the truth is that it was a complex beastie that used all sorts of cutting edge moulding and bonding techniques.

I built a very high-performance airplane–a Falco F8L–of wood, and in fact I used the very same glue that was used in the Mosquito: Resorcinol. My Falco also used the same “cutting-edge moulding and bonding techniques” that were used on the Mosquito, mainly substantial scarfing of wood panels and steam bending of same.

I doubt I could have built a Spitfire in my barn in New York.

…the Stirling…..could only get 8000 Ib (some sources say 3500 Ib!) of its total 14,000 Ib bomb load to Berlin…

I was a bit high with my guess; one Stirling (mark III EH908 as it happens) carried 4 x 500lb GP plus 4 x 500lb MC plus 8 x 30lb incendiary bombs to Berlin on the night of 23/24 August 1943. A quote, presumably from the ORB states:

…just after bombing coned by thirty lights, attacked by three nightfighters. Fire returned, one enemy aircraft damaged…

It took them three hours thirteen minutes from take-off to bombs-gone.

Light Night Striking Force

Ivor Broom’s comments re the B-17 and the Mossie, are more logical in context of the para from Bennet’s book.

The Light Night Striking Force of Mosquitos during one phase of the war made bombing raids to Berlin on 43 consecutive occasions without a break. Sometimes the same aircraft would make a second raid on the same night. The Light Night Striking Force flew 553 sorties during April 1943 for the loss of only one aircraft.
The LNSF used to operate in the most appalling weather and one night Air Vice Marshal Donald Bennett was visited by Mrs. Ogden Reid of the New York Herald Tribune. She had asked to witness the start of a raid. This distinguished lady of the American press arrived with a member of the British Government and was immediately driven to the end of the runway by Bennett. Fog caused heavy bomber raids to be cancelled but as the mist swirled around the signal caravan at the end of the runway Mosquitos could be seen taxying on from both directions to save time, lining up and taking off for Berlin in quick succession. She turned to Bennett and said, “I see they have got a bulge – they’re carrying a “Blockbuster” aren’t they?” She asked what it weighed and Bennett told her 4000 lbs which was 500 lbs more than a B-17 Flying Fortress could carry to Berlin. In any case, he pointed out; a Fortress would not accommodate a 4000 lb “cookie” because it was too large for its bomb bay. The famous Press lady pondered for a few moments before replying “I only hope the American public never realises these facts.”
One young Mosquito pilot of those days was Wing Commander 1. G. Broom (later Air Marshal Sir Ivor Broom DSO, DFC and two bars, AFC). “We did 25 nights to Berlin. You could fly there and be back in the mess before the bar closed. We could carry more to Berlin with a crew of two in a Mosquito than could a Flying Fortress with a crew of ten. They had to fight their way there and back in daylight. We went fast at night, at 28,000 ft.”

Mo

Don Bennett used to relate a story, when he was accompanied by an American reporter, and they were watching Mosquitos taking off, and she asked where they were going. “Berlin.” “Those little things?” Those little things are carrying a 4,000lb bomb.” “But, that’s what the B-17 carries.” “Not to Berlin; with the extra fuel, they can only carry 3,200lb.” ” Geez, I’d better not tell them that, back home; they think the B-17’s winning the war.”
Don’t forget that the aim, most often, was to set the towns on fire, and this was achieved by the mix of ordnance; the bombs broke the buildings open, and the incendiaries set them alight. The Mosquito’s single bomb couldn’t do that, so pinpoint targets were where it was at its best.
Edgar

I guess the Mustang with the Griffon swung like lightning, needing a trike u/cart for landing ??

I’m not quite sure in what way those two statements are linked?

Moggy

I wonder why the Wing Commander named the relatively efficent and survivable B-17 instead of naming one of his countries own bombers?
Would you rather go to Berlin in a Stirling or a Fortress? That says it all I think.

Neither !! A Lancaster, at night , if the Mossie wasnt available ! LoL

As has been said I reckon he (a) didnt want to knock one of his own & (b) there was more of a direct comparison between the Fort and the Mossie as regards bomb load.

As regards the He219 would it have had that much advantage over the Mossie?

I guess the Mustang with the Griffon swung like lightning, needing a trike u/cart for landing ??

Why would the Griffon engine in the P-51 be more onerous than that put in to production with the (narrower track undercarriage) Spitfire?

The later marks of Mossies with the bulged bomb bay could carry 4000lb to Berlin. I can remember talking to an ex Mossie nav who claimed Berlin and back in 4 hrs 15 min.

As for Griffons, what a beast that would be !!! Have to be handed props or the swing would turn it into the original Oozlum bird, not to mention the weight and balance problems.

I guess the Mustang with the Griffon swung like lightning, needing a trike u/cart for landing ??