An all Mosquito Bomber Command

so, could you give some informations about the numbers you belive are needed and how you "train" these experts?

sound fascinating for me... i disagree totally, but it is interesting

Greetings

You are either being dull or trolling, more likely both.

5 Group regularly operated as a semi independent organisation within BC getting results far better than the other Groups so that makes it as of 6th June 1944 - 16 main squadrons plus 3 Heavy Conversion Units.

If you want to add Pathfinding units then that's another 11 Squadrons.

So, you have your figures.
 
You are either being dull or trolling, more likely both.

5 Group regularly operated as a semi independent organisation within BC getting results far better than the other Groups so that makes it as of 6th June 1944 - 16 main squadrons plus 3 Heavy Conversion Units.

If you want to add Pathfinding units then that's another 11 Squadrons.

So, you have your figures.


well, it isn´t needed to be insulting.

i ask a question - cause you are the one who belive that these figures are enough to do the same damage as the bc did.

so i ask, how you think this could be done - i think this question is not unfriendly or troll-like

it seems if someone questioning your opinion you get angry and insulting
why is this?

i know a few things about this air war..,. so i openly say your comments about replacing the bomber command are not realistic. the americans tried and had no succsess... but you know the "truth".. do you really think the allied hqs are so stupid? they pump in so much manpower and goods, do you really think they had not think about it but recognized that it is no smart idea?

So - my question - is it trolling if someone disagree to such an extreme opinion (replace bc with a few high level bomber crews)?

maybe you rethink your position?
 
i know a few things about this air war..,. so i openly say your comments about replacing the bomber command are not realistic. the americans tried and had no succsess... but you know the "truth".. do you really think the allied hqs are so stupid? they pump in so much manpower and goods, do you really think they had not think about it but recognized that it is no smart idea?

Yes, its obvious they were stupid, the panic after Dunkirk, the thinking an invasion was actually a possibility, the stopping of development to concentrate on a few designs, the reluctance to loose any aircraft due to changeovers in tooling even when the resulting aircraft would be better.

I agree you do know 'a few things about this air war'......sadly none of them accurate.

The US is trying from 30,000ft crusing at around 220mph.......the VHA Lancaster is cruising at 320mph at 40,000ft...in other words only slightly slower than the cruise speed of the Mosquito but with over 10,000ft extra height.


maybe you rethink your position?

No
 
My comment about laser designators was an attempt to show how implausible it is that an all light bomber force could be a war winning weapon. Should have used a smiley.
 
You can train someone to work metal easier than you can train someone to work wood. So we could have produced more Mosquitos pretty easily, but only four more times as many if we started a year earlier, without the delays, but with production in America.
Probably they would do a serious amount of damage if we had used them as long range attack aircraft and went after German power and transport facilities. I doubt that they would have had significantly more impact if used for area bombing. We did a pretty good job of smashing Germany just using the conventional bombers, if at a higher price in aircrew and production resources.
 
A couple of points I'd like to make:

1. If the British switch over to daylight bombing, the Germans wounl't need night fighters. However they would need a lot more interceptors to stop both the RAF Bomber Command and the USAAF, which would both be hitting them during the day. Instead of a single raid of USAAF going for a target in Germany, you would also have RAF raids going for other targets. This will actually put even more pressure on the Germans.

2. The Mosquito RAF bomber attacks would be conducted at low altitude. Therefore you would need a lot less bombs and bombers that you would need in a typical daytime USAAF strike. The Americans regularly used 100+ bombers to hit single targets, like a factory building complex. If you get 30 Mosquitos over the target at low altitude, the target is toast. They will simply hit the damm thing a lot more accurate than the B-17s would.
This also means that the RAF would have the option of hitting multiple targets at the same time, thus putting even more pressure on the Germans to coordinate their defences.

3. Some have pointed out, that the Germans would simply put up more AAA to hit the lot flying Mosquitos and use more fighters. Surely this is correct, but these AAA and fighters would also be a very good target for the RAF. I can imagine Mosquitos being outfitted for the escort role, hitting Germans defences, before the real strike comes in.

4. The Tirpitz is not a problem. Even if the Lancaster is not available, the Royal Navy had the capacity to sink it with a carrier-launched strike in 1944.

5. One problem would be, that you would need a lot more pilots than in OTL. This would mean a larg training project, which could perhaps be partially carried out in the USA?

I like the idea of a Mosquite bomber command and I think it would meet at least the same goals like the original bombing campaign did. The biggest potential is IMHO after 1943, when the Allies dominated the skies over Germany and you have good interceptors (like the P-51) to cover the bomber force all the way to the target.
1000 Mosquitos, each carrying 2 tons of bombs are going to do more damage than 500 Lancaster, each carrying 6 tons of bombs, simply because they are all going to actually hit their targets.
 
I like the idea of a Mosquite bomber command and I think it would meet at least the same goals like the original bombing campaign did. The biggest potential is IMHO after 1943, when the Allies dominated the skies over Germany and you have good interceptors (like the P-51) to cover the bomber force all the way to the target.

1000 Mosquitos, each carrying 2 tons of bombs are going to do more damage than 500 Lancaster, each carrying 6 tons of bombs, simply because they are all going to actually hit their targets.

I prefer the idea of Stratospheric Lancasters (Avro Type 684) - 500 of them carrying 6 tonnes dropped from 40,000 ft with the force navigating with the aid of G-H - thought of in 1940 but pigeon holed until 1942. Slightly less range than Oboe but you have an extra 10,000ft on the Oboe Mosquito's to get that range back and it required a highly trained navigator to cope with the heavy workload but you have less aircraft.

To add to the Lancasters, develop Wallis's Victory bomber and add 32,000lb bombs from 40,000ft - make very good use of the three Wellington factories that cannot make anything other than geodetic airframe aircraft.

The RAF was going for high altitude bombing anyway - look at specs B35.37 and B.23/39 before the panic at Dunkirk and the decision by MAP to virtually halt all new development.
 

hammo1j

Donor
Certainly after the war, the emphasis was on fast unarmed bombers using evasive tactics (Vulcan, Canberra etc).

PMN1's concepts and the Mosquito idea was clearly ahead of its time but was entirely implementable and should have been considered by BC when things started to badly wrong, fall 1943.
 
Something else to think about



RAF Bomber Command 1936-1968 by Chris Ashworth

Page 189

A fixing aid using pulsed range signals from ground transmitters had been invented in 1938 but had remained undeveloped due to lack of funds. In June 1940 work restarted at the TRE and a simple cathode ray tube display giving readings, which could be plotted, on a special navigational grid chart to give an accurate fix was produced. The equipment was enthusiastically reported on a radio aids meeting on 16 October 1940 and a month later Bomber Command requested that Gee be provided for all bombers.






Also, from John Terraine's 'Right of the Line'

'For a variety of reasons, which include the procreative habits of cockles and the peace of mind of swans, the provision of ranges for the proper testing of bombs proved impossible in peacetime, difficult even in war. This was not unnatural in a small island, given the un-military prejudices of so many of its people, but Sir Maurice Dean pertinently asks 'What about all those deserts to which the Royal Air Force of those days had unlimited access?' The lamentable fact remains that they were not put to use - with the result that the RAF's bombs were for a long time more than a liability, costing the lives of brave men to no good purpose.'


There was a paper a few years ago 'Britain 1939 to 1945: The Economic Cost of Strategic Bombing' which suggested 9 of the 11 bombs used by Bomber Command were faulty in some way and at least 30% of RAF bombs didn't explode.




Now couple Gee with bombs that actually go bang........you won't get the accuracy you need for 'pinpoint' bombing but you should end up making far fewer holes in fields.
 
I found Terraine's "Right of the Line" not only a factual goldmine but a very pleasant read. He did point out that "official" histories are not necessarily factual histories.

Geoffrey DeHavilland had postulated that the Mossie could actually do two sorties a night, due to it's high speed, doubling the tonnage delivered. That still requires two sets of crew.

I don't know how production levels could have increased to a massive scale or how sufficient crew could be trained on type. The Armstrong- Whitworth Albemarle was one type which could have been axed in it's stead. It was, after all, the Air Ministry's version of the Mossie.
 
I don't know how production levels could have increased to a massive scale or how sufficient crew could be trained on type. The Armstrong- Whitworth Albemarle was one type which could have been axed in it's stead. It was, after all, the Air Ministry's version of the Mossie.

Something I have wondered about is how the AW method of construction for the Albermale differed from the Martin Baker method of construction for its fighters and whether that method could be scaled up.

I have asked around and haven't got much back except for there may be problems with pressurisation but one way around that is to use the method Vickers used for its High Altitude Wellingtons - a metal pressure tube in the structure.
 
I'm not at all interested in how the Albemarle was constructed. I can only presume that the method was traditional, time-proven, and antequated. James Martin's use of thin-wall high-quality steel tubing and removable panels was innovative. It is a great pity that his contribution during the war period consisted mostly of illustrating his talents, rather than producing. He even knew how to make folding wings, an advantage for naval aircraft. His own company wasn't on the list of approved companies that received production orders for either RAF or FAA machines, and his design genius was largely wasted until the flying chairs era. Had he received a contract to design for an established approved firm, maybe. He would have had to have an assistant to remind him to add a vertical fin,as he didn't believe in them.
 
Top