British Bombers

plan_D · 06-28-2005, 05:32 PM

Where did I say 'insignificant'? The Mosquito raids were small and precise. I would still call them almost Commando like. A Pathfinder Mosquito is not equipped with anything, it was very fast and would direct a bomber formation. It's not being slowed down.

The Mosquito would be in large raids and many would be shot down. A large formation is easily intercepted because they can be detected and blocked off.
The Luftwaffe would be swamped but that doesn't mean they wouldn't send up interceptors. They could send up interceptors against these swarms of Mosquito to shoot down many each time. The RAF would soon realise the lack of sense in carrying on as it's losing many-many aircraft.

A Mosquito raid was conducted at low level while at extremely high speeds. That was the Mosquitos perfect situation. By moving them to strategic bombing campaign level, their situation is removed and they are vulnerable.

poprune · 06-28-2005, 06:02 PM

You didn't, but my correction obviously crossed with your post. Sorry again.

They don't all have to be bomber Mosquitos. Just like the night intruder and night interdiction Mossies that accompanied the bomber streams and had the night-fighters looking over their shoulders, you can mix bombers and fighters. You could also use all the electronic gizmos like Mandrel and Airborne Cigar, etc (see, a use for Lancs and B17s after all!), which could be used day or night.
It's a thoery, a proposition. Imagine the sky black with Mossies and the sound of all those Merlins (Mustangs, too!).
Yes, I know how the Mosquito was actually used, but I'm sure that that wasn't the way it was planned or intended, or if anything was planned or intended at all. In fact, it took a lot of pressure from 5 Group to get the aircraft into use at all! It could do damned near everything it was asked to do (except land gracefully on one engine), so who's to say that it couldn't do this, too?

plan_D · 06-28-2005, 07:42 PM

What was intended of the Mosqutio was exactly what it was used for, precision bombing, pathfinding, recainassaince, anti-shipping, night-fighting etc. etc.

If this is all at night, why bother? The Lancaster could carry much more than the Mosquito and it could carry it further. The Lancaster bomber with Mosquito night escort fighter was a perfect blend.

pbfoot · 06-28-2005, 08:01 PM

please don't underestimate the pinnacle of british bombers the whitley

poprune · 06-29-2005, 03:04 AM

I didn't say that it was all at night. Radar works during the day, too. And I'm sorry, but the tactic for the Mosquito developed as it was found that it really was a very capable aircraft. Whitehall didn't really want it at first and most certainly had no plans or developed strategies for it. That 'Wooden Wonder' label they gave it was as much because it overcame the blimp attitude of the powers-that-be as much as its qualities.
I say again: it did everything it was asked to do and excelled at it. Why not this?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 06-29-2005, 09:45 AM

Because what dont you understand about it defeating the purpose of the Mosquito. I think me and Plan_D seem to understand this. The Mosquitos performance would decline. It could not sustain its speed and maneuverability with a full bomb load. A large swarm of Mosquitos carrying a 4000lb load would have been easy targets for the Fw-190 interceptors.

The British Lancasters did the job required of them and did it the best.

plan_D · 06-29-2005, 10:03 AM

The Ju-88 could do everything asked of it but one thing, strategic bombing. The same would apply to the Mosquito because strategic bombers need to be able to carry a large load to the target with the least number of aircraft.

What happens when the German FlaK opens up on a swarm of Mosquitos larger than any formation of Lancasters. With more planes comes more room taken up, even if the planes are smaller. A massive formation of Mosqutios to make up for the bomb load would make a formation stretching many miles.

poprune · 06-29-2005, 10:09 AM

I think that this discussion is beginning to take on a circular aspect. It's a 'what if?', not a constant repetitition of the same arguments in a slightly different form. Let's just agree to disagree.

the lancaster kicks ass · 06-29-2005, 12:29 PM

right then, the average lancaster, in one raid, was said to cause the enemy the same amount of damage in terms of production ability as it took to produce the lanc (if you see what i mean), and the average mission life of the lanc was 21 missions, this means, on average, each lanc destroyed 21 times the enery/ effort whatever you want to call it, than it took to make it, how did it manage this?? it carried a huge payload, this payload would often consist of high explosive and incenduries, a mossie carrying a 4,000lber to berlin will not cause the same ammount of damage as it took to make the mossie (i really don't think i've made that very clear have i?? well i understand what i mean...), so mossies would have to be launched in thousands to cause the same damage as a lesser number of lancs, and you argue that the mossies have fewer crews, well if you put up enough mossies you're gonna get just as many men in the air as you would bombing with lancs!! and launching lesser numbers of lancs is far more economical than launching countless mossies, and i agree with pD, the mossie was not suited to all out bombing like that!

now then, bungle doesn't seem to come on much but we'll see, this one's just as a test to see if bungle really knows his stuff! we'll start with two very very easy ones, firstly, what is the correct designation for the dam buster's lancs, secondly, who is thought to have flown over 900 different lancasters in their career??

i want bungle to answer first so if you guys know, keep quiet!!

plan_D · 06-29-2005, 12:32 PM

I would just like to point out that I know what you mean about the Lancaster causing more damage to resources than it took to build the Lancaster, in one raid.

the lancaster kicks ass · 06-29-2005, 12:51 PM

well then you are obviously a man of exeptional inteligence......

plan_D · 06-29-2005, 12:59 PM

Well, I did already know that.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 06-29-2005, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poprune

I think that this discussion is beginning to take on a circular aspect. It's a 'what if?', not a constant repetitition of the same arguments in a slightly different form. Let's just agree to disagree.

Then next time start it up in the "What if" thread that has been here for a while for such threads, and if you do accept the constructive critism about it that others give because it happens to just about every "What if" scenerio that is started.