The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

What would be the point of having one on an aircraft with no guns?

True

[Junkers88A1]

and here is what the crew back in the olf days thought of their lovable B-24

[P-Popsie]

Would it be unrealistic to assume the crews who flew these A/C in combat conditions may have somthing of an idea about which one they thought was best. If this is any indication most RAF pilots were elated if they were posted to or their squadron was re-fitted with DH 98's. Plenty of station reports and letters home to prove this. There can be only one reason for this; survivability the mosquito's ratio of operations sucessfully pressed home vrs KIA is unsurpassed by any frontline serving A/C again the Stats are easy to check.
And this was the sharp end of the sword gentelmen for example 139sqdn {I think } first daylight raid into Berlin to name but one ,of a long line of accolades. Or was there another group of A/C operating in the European theatre that were known as the Gestapo Hunters. I have in other posts noted that the Far East squadrons did report that they experienced trouble with mould but this hardly equalls turning to matchwood in months. De Haviland had a vision of a fast high altitude bomber that could outrun the {German}fighters that were sent to intercept it. This it did in spades with i might add, often a 4000lb bomb load all the way to Berlin. Eslsewhere here i read someone claim a B 17 could lift a 17,000lb over a short distance. Bloody short i would immagine if at all. I have to apologize for not being able to produce referenceable material here to support these veiws i don't have my books with me at this point. Not sure why the DH 98 draws so much animosity,envy perhaps ? .

Good Hunting Gents!

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by P-Popsie

Not sure why the DH 98 draws so much animosity,envy perhaps ?

Actually neither - the Mossie was a great aircraft in its role as a light tactical bomber and fighter, but it could not fulfill the role the heavy bombers accomplished in any theater, espically the Pacific, and I'm not only talking about the B-17.

[P-Popsie]

I couldn't agree more the DH 98 was in no way a Heavy Bomber, for that we have the Lancaster 22'000lbs to 19'000 ft almost the equasion Barnes Wallis originally envisioned as the ultimate bombing tool to cripple an enemy by incising their capacity to wage war. The Lanc was great because it excceded the expectations of its creators and handlers alike as did the DH 98. But the point raised earlier i think in this thread that if the RAF had DH 98's in greater numbers the USAF may not have needed to expend so many lives against Fortress Europe is valid. But we'll never know but can merely speculate !

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by P-Popsie

But the point raised earlier i think in this thread that if the RAF had DH 98's in greater numbers the USAF may not have needed to expend so many lives against Fortress Europe is valid. But we'll never know but can merely speculate !

Perhaps, but the again (speculating) could the same amount of Mossies been built as quickly in the numbers needed to deliver the same amount of bomb tonnage as the B-17? The way strategic bombers were deployed was like having a flying freeway overpass where you could just drop bombs all over your enemy. Much of the effect was a saturation with large number of bombers. I think you would have to factor production capability, bomb carrying capability along with the ability to account for attrition.

[P-Popsie]

All true as for production numbers i think that had the allies seen the potential of the DH 98 they may very well have dedicated more of the effort into production than they did. One of the motivations stated behind the private creation of this A/C was De Havilands realization that there was a large skilled labour pool available from the Carpentry /Furniture industries. As for the idea that area Bombing was the only effective way no nuetralize the German war machine is only acurate in the context of the lack of accurate bombing practices and equipment. Had the RAF taken Barnes Wallis more seriosly at the start of the war and not simply brushed him aside with a pat on the back about the wellington aqnd a suggestion to leave the Bombs to the experts. Experts who at the time still beleived a 500lb bomb was the largest thing you needed in your arsenal as there was no way you could place a single bomb close enough to have any effect. The precision bombing provided by 464 Sqdn {100 Grp } and 617Sqdn proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that accurate pinpoint destruction of the target is much more effective than wiping out the workforces capacity to be effective by area bombing. All wartime decisions however can be looked at with hindsight and faults will always be found. I wonder if this doesnt come down to the question of which form of bombing one feels is more effective at stopping war production. I can only assume that current thinking today is for accuracy otherwise we wouldn't have Smart bombs. Maybr Barnes was onto somthing.Cheers for the Dialogue

[pbfoot]

The Mossie was alright as was the Lanc but I believe I'd opt for either the 24 or 17 for best bang for the buck after all it wasn't Bomber Command nor 2TAF that caused the destruction of the LW which was far more important then area bombing

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by P-Popsie

All true as for production numbers i think that had the allies seen the potential of the DH 98 they may very well have dedicated more of the effort into production than they did. One of the motivations stated behind the private creation of this A/C was De Havilands realization that there was a large skilled labour pool available from the Carpentry /Furniture industries.

All true to a point except could they have produced the numbers as seen by the B-17 and got them to the squdrons quickly enough? Remember the drawbacks with maintaining wood? The same goes with building wood airplanes. Glues and resins need to cure, production line discrepancies are harder to address and it is a lot easier to actually build an airplane from metal than it is from wood - in fact where you would need skilled labor for building wood aircraft (your furniture makers) it is very easy to train non-skilled folks to drill holes and buck rivets and you could train them in droves.

Originally Posted by P-Popsie

As for the idea that area Bombing was the only effective way no nuetralize the German war machine is only acurate in the context of the lack of accurate bombing practices and equipment. Had the RAF taken Barnes Wallis more seriosly at the start of the war and not simply brushed him aside with a pat on the back about the wellington aqnd a suggestion to leave the Bombs to the experts. Experts who at the time still beleived a 500lb bomb was the largest thing you needed in your arsenal as there was no way you could place a single bomb close enough to have any effect. The precision bombing provided by 464 Sqdn {100 Grp } and 617Sqdn proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that accurate pinpoint destruction of the target is much more effective than wiping out the workforces capacity to be effective by area bombing. All wartime decisions however can be looked at with hindsight and faults will always be found. I wonder if this doesnt come down to the question of which form of bombing one feels is more effective at stopping war production. I can only assume that current thinking today is for accuracy otherwise we wouldn't have Smart bombs. Maybr Barnes was onto somthing.

I could agree there - on the other side of the world area bombing was used in conjunction with tactical support. B-24s were used across the pacific to neutralize a target by saturating it. After that fighter bombers, be it land or carrier base would finish the mop up and support invading troops. Kwajalein, Tainan and Saipan are some of the places I know this was employed, I'm sure there were others.

Originally Posted by P-Popsie

Cheers for the Dialogue

Likewise...

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I could agree there - on the other side of the world area bombing was used in conjunction with tactical support. B-24s were used across the pacific to neutralize a target by saturating it. After that fighter bombers, be it land or carrier base would finish the mop up and support invading troops. Kwajalein, Tainan and Saipan are some of the places I know this was employed, I'm sure there were others.

Likewise...

I always thought the process was the other way around....the fast carriers would move into an area, and spend a few days softening up the Japanese land based airpower....then the marines would hit the beach and take one or more of the airfields in the area. This would be rapidly repaired and usually extended and/or expanded, and in would come the heavy bombers, whose purpose it was to keep the surrounding airfields suppressed. B-29s were used differently, they went stright for the Home Islands after Saipan, but at night (in the beginning...mostly). It was a different story in the solomons where land based air WAS the lead element of the assault.

I was not aware that the US Heavies were doing much over Gilberts, the Marshalls or the Marianas before the fast carrier strikes...I always thought the great distances were a problem, even for these great a/c

[kool kitty89]

The Mossie was a high performance light bomber with the capabilities of a decent sized medium bomber.

If you want to use the same kind of compact, high performance, unarmmed concept in place of the large (particularly daylight) strategic bombers, you need an aircraft closer in size to a B-25 or B-26.

Eliminate all defensive guns (maybe keep a few fixed in the nose) reduce crew to 3-4 and maximize bomb capacity and range. Powered by 2x turbocharged R-2800's.

Even so, you'd still probably need a bit more to get the same payload on target (probably 3 for every 2 heavies). Escorts would probably still be needed as well. But they'd still be significantly more difficult to intercept.

[kool kitty89]

Wait...

Weren't we just discussing the same thing over here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...r-11308-8.html (B-17 vs. He-177 vs. Lancaster)

Now it's migrated over here.

P-Popsie, you might want to check out some of the recent discussion on the Mossie over there.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

I always thought the process was the other way around....the fast carriers would move into an area, and spend a few days softening up the Japanese land based airpower....then the marines would hit the beach and take one or more of the airfields in the area. This would be rapidly repaired and usually extended and/or expanded, and in would come the heavy bombers, whose purpose it was to keep the surrounding airfields suppressed. B-29s were used differently, they went stright for the Home Islands after Saipan, but at night (in the beginning...mostly). It was a different story in the solomons where land based air WAS the lead element of the assault.

I was not aware that the US Heavies were doing much over Gilberts, the Marshalls or the Marianas before the fast carrier strikes...I always thought the great distances were a problem, even for these great a/c

Prior to the B-29's arrival, the B-24 was used extensively in the Pacific. Here's the history of the 30th BG.

30th BG History (H)

[P-Popsie]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

The Mossie was alright as was the Lanc but I believe I'd opt for either the 24 or 17 for best bang for the buck after all it wasn't Bomber Command nor 2TAF that caused the destruction of the LW which was far more important then area bombing

Each to their own as they say i think for me it boiled down to if i was flying into hostile European skys to drop bombs by daylight i'd want the fastest bloody thing i could find under my arse. I know the mossie wasn't the fastest, it'd do me though.

By the way what is the LW; Luftwaffe i'm guessing but just checking

[P-Popsie]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ;4167:idea: 91

All true to a point except could they have produced the numbers as seen by the B-17 and got them to the squdrons quickly enough?

Possibly But certainly not in England but quite possibly from the dominions as i said if High command had realized the prize De Haviland had handed them, the trickle that flowed from canada and the drop that were produced in Australia could of been a flood Transportation is the bottleneck in this idea of course.

[QUOTE=FLYBOYJ Remember the drawbacks with maintaining wood? The same goes with building wood airplanes. Glues and resins need to cure, production line discrepancies are harder to address and it is a lot easier to actually build an airplane from metal than it is from wood[/QUOTE]

Absolutely as for the curing and so forth compared to the time spent creating massive production facilities such as the huge Boeing line in Wichita { I know i've spelt that wrong} That in itself is another area of speculation i must add however timber construction does lend itself to de-centralization better than does metal.

[QUOTE=FLYBOYJ in fact where you would need skilled labor for building wood aircraft (your furniture makers) it is very easy to train non-skilled folks to drill holes and buck rivets and you could train them in droves.[/QUOTE]

Without doubt but surely people who can run a riveter or welder could use a lathe or drill. but i do get your point an especially in the US it is far more sensible to stick to a comodity that the bulk of your remaining {after enlistments} skilled workforce is familiar with.

[QUOTE=FLYBOYJI could agree there - on the other side of the world area bombing was used in conjunction with tactical support. B-24s were used across the pacific to neutralize a target by saturating it.[/QUOTE]

It was also the naturally decentralized nature of the Japanese war industry that really allowed the Area Bombing Beast to be unleashed.

sorry bout the shabby apearance of the post can't get the multiple quote to work properly on my browser but I'll perservere as i have a few more people to post to.

As always Nice one