Weight of B-17 BMG Ammo
Tony Whitaker
carried approximately 5,000 rounds of Browning .50 cal ammo, and the
Lancaster carried 14,000 rounds of Browning .303 cal ammo. I assume the Lanc
used the British rimmed .303 cartridge used in the Enfield (right). How much
did that ammo weigh?
Also, if anyone can point me to a reference that specifies the weight of the
ball turret in the B-17, I'll send you my right arm.
Peter Bjoern
Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Can anyone help me with ammo weight? I've found references that say the B-17
>carried approximately 5,000 rounds of Browning .50 cal ammo, and the
>Lancaster carried 14,000 rounds of Browning .303 cal ammo. I assume the Lanc
>used the British rimmed .303 cartridge used in the Enfield (right). How much
>did that ammo weigh?
In John Comer's (a B-17 flight engineer and top turret gunner) book "Combat
Crew" (about his tour in the 381st BG), he writes in the paragraph covering
their September 3rd 1943 mission to Romilly, that the standard ammo load was
7000 rounds, but he had decided to put an extra 1000 rounds aboard though it was
against the regulation to add more.
But they had good relations with the armorer who could always get them the
extra ammo they wanted. Which was every time a mission sounded like it would
be extra mean.
This practice nearly cost the crew it's life on a later mission, as John Comer
writes.
They had stacked all the extra ammo in the rear of the plane plus the tail
gunner had been in the tail during takeoff, which had shifted the center of
gravity so far aft that they barely managed to get airborne before the end of
the field and nearly crashed on a field after just clearing some trees.
Regards
Peter
Tony Whitaker
Crew" (about his tour in the 381st BG), he writes in the paragraph covering
their September 3rd 1943 mission to Romilly, that the standard ammo load was
Thanks for the info. My reference, "Great Aircraft of WWII" by Alfred Price
and Mike Spick, doesn't actually give the total ammo load. It only lists the
loads for the upper turret (800 rounds), ball turret (1000 rounds), tail
guns (1130 rounds), and waist positions (1200 rounds). I estimated a minimum
of 1000 rounds for the remaining 5 guns.
I'm arguing with some Brits on the soc.history.war.world-war-ii newsgroup
about the relative performances of the Lancaster vs the B-17. I've already
brought them down from claims of 22,000 lb bomb loads to a typical Berlin
raid Lanc bomb load of between 8,000 and 9,000 lbs. My next step is to prove
that the weight of ammo, armor plating, and the ball turret brought the
B-17's performance down from what would otherwise be comparable performance
to the Lanc. I've proven that the weight of guns alone, (13) .50 cal vs (8)
.303 cal, accounted for over 600 lbs.
ArtKramr
>From: Peter Bjoern Peter...@image.dk
>Date: 4/23/00 2:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <mpp6gsg09kho34002...@4ax.com>
>
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 14:05:20 -0400 a carbon-based biped by the name of "Tony
>Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Can anyone help me with ammo weight? I've found references that say the B-17
>>carried approximately 5,000 rounds of Browning .50 cal ammo, and the
>>Lancaster carried 14,000 rounds of Browning .303 cal ammo. I assume the Lanc
>>used the British rimmed .303 cartridge used in the Enfield (right). How much
>>did that ammo weigh?
>
>Crew" (about his tour in the 381st BG), he writes in the paragraph covering
>their September 3rd 1943 mission to Romilly, that the standard ammo load was
>was
>against the regulation to add more.
>But they had good relations with the armorer who could always get them the
>extra ammo they wanted. Which was every time a mission sounded like it would
>be extra mean.
>This practice nearly cost the crew it's life on a later mission, as John
>Comer
>writes.
>They had stacked all the extra ammo in the rear of the plane plus the tail
>gunner had been in the tail during takeoff, which had shifted the center of
>gravity so far aft that they barely managed to get airborne before the end of
>the field and nearly crashed on a field after just clearing some trees.
>
>Regards
>
>Peter
>
>
>
F/O Arthur Kramer
344th Bomb Group, 9th Air Force
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
C.C. Jordan
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 14:05:20 -0400 a carbon-based biped by the name of "Tony
>Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Can anyone help me with ammo weight? I've found references that say the B-17
>>carried approximately 5,000 rounds of Browning .50 cal ammo, and the
>>Lancaster carried 14,000 rounds of Browning .303 cal ammo. I assume the Lanc
>>used the British rimmed .303 cartridge used in the Enfield (right). How much
>>did that ammo weigh?
>
>In John Comer's (a B-17 flight engineer and top turret gunner) book "Combat
>Crew" (about his tour in the 381st BG), he writes in the paragraph covering
>their September 3rd 1943 mission to Romilly, that the standard ammo load was
>7000 rounds, but he had decided to put an extra 1000 rounds aboard though it was
>against the regulation to add more.
The typical load-out was 6,380 rnds., or about 1,300 lbs. Some Groups
would load more more if the mission allowed for less than full fuel tanks.
Individual crews would sometimes stow additional ammo aboard. However,
this was usually not a good idea. The extra weight could not be offset by
the mythical advantage of 1,000 to 2,000 rounds that would likely never be
used anyway. Show me a crew who fired off 8,000 rounds of .50 cal, and
I would be very interested in knowing what they were shooting at. Remember,
if their bomber should lose an engine, that extra 300 lbs becomes critical to
maintaining altitude and position in the combat box. Perhaps, more importantly,
lose an engine on takeoff, and that 300 lbs may be the difference in executing
a safe climb-out or boring a big hole in the ground. In a heavily loaded bomber,
evey pound counts. Disregard of max takeoff weight specifications is foolhardy.
Especially with two and a half tons of high explosives in the bomb bay and
more than 2,800 gallons of 100 octane fuel in the wings.
My regards,
C.C. Jordan
http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/Widewing.html - Widewing Publications
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com - The Planes and Pilots of WWII Internet Magazine
http://www.cradleofaviation.org - The Cradle of Aviation Museum
ArtKramr
>Date: 4/23/00 5:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <39039548...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 14:05:20 -0400 a carbon-based biped by the name of "Tony
>>Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>he writes in the paragraph covering
>>their September 3rd 1943 mission to Romilly, that the standard ammo load was
>>7000 rounds, but he had decided to put an extra 1000 rounds aboard though it
>was
>>against the regulation to add more.
> Remember,
>if their bomber should lose an engine, that extra 300 lbs becomes critical to
>maintaining altitude and position in the combat box. Perhaps, more
>importantly,
>lose an engine on takeoff, and that 300 lbs may be the difference in
>executing
>a safe climb-out or boring a big hole in the ground. In a heavily loaded
>bomber,
>evey pound counts. Disregard of max takeoff weight specifications is
>foolhardy.
>Especially with two and a half tons of high explosives in the bomb bay and
>more than 2,800 gallons of 100 octane fuel in the wings.
>
>My regards,
>C.C. Jordan
>
>http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/Widewing.html - Widewing Publications
>http://www.worldwar2aviation.com - The Planes and Pilots of WWII Internet
>Magazine
>http://www.cradleofaviation.org - The Cradle of Aviation Museum
>
>
.The stupid bastard that smuggled all that extra ammo should have been court
marshalled. An undisciplined soldier who goes against orders is a death threat
waiting to be executed. I would have had that bastard court marshalled in a
heart beat.
ArtKramr
>Date: 4/23/00 5:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8e05mc$85j$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>
>
>I'm arguing with some Brits on the soc.history.war.world-war-ii newsgroup
>about the relative performances of the Lancaster vs the B-17. I've already
>brought them down from claims of 22,000 lb bomb loads to a typical Berlin
>raid Lanc bomb load of between 8,000 and 9,000 lbs. My next step is to prove
>that the weight of ammo, armor plating, and the ball turret brought the
>B-17's performance down from what would otherwise be comparable performance
>to the Lanc. I've proven that the weight of guns alone, (13) .50 cal vs (8)
>.303 cal, accounted for over 600 lbs.
>
If we remove guns and armor we will of course bring the weight down. That's
obvious. What are you trying to prove?
Tony Williams
Quite so - and B-17s had an additional burden in the extra fuel they
had to carry for the protracted maneouverings to get into formation.
All that proves is that daylight operations involved considerable
weight penalties in comparison with night operations. On the other
hand, more of the daytime bombs probably hit their targets, so what you
gain on the swings....
To answer the original question, according to the Air Ministry's
Operational Research report, heavy bombers could carry up to 18,000
rounds of .303 which weighed over 1,000 lbs. In fact, combat
experience showed that just 3,000 rounds would be adequate on a night
mission. As a matter of interest, 90 percent of Lancaster missions
made no contact with enemy night fighters. Of the 10 percent that did,
half were shot down. Give me a Mosquito any day....
--
Tony Williams
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/
Military gun and ammunition website
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tony Whitaker
obvious. What are you trying to prove?"
I'm trying to prove that the Lancaster and B-17 were approximately equal in
terms of lifting ability, and that the apparently huge bomb load advantage
of the Lancaster resulted from the smaller weight of defensive armament,
armor and equipment needed for night operations. This may appear obvious to
you and me, but it's not so obvious to some Brits. Until I used alot of
references to published sources to refute their claims, they were making
comments like "Lancaster - 22,000 lb bomb load. B-17 - 4,000 lb bomb load".
From what I've read, it appears that the Lanc had one significant advantage
over the B-17. It had a much longer range with any given load.
Tony Whitaker
penalties in comparison with night operations. On the other hand, more of
the daytime bombs probably hit their targets, so what you gain on the
swings...."
That seems like such a common sense observation, but you wouldn't believe
the controversy that arises from that assertion.
"To answer the original question, according to the Air Ministry's
Operational Research report, heavy bombers could carry up to 18,000 rounds
of .303 which weighed over 1,000 lbs. In fact, combat experience showed
that just 3,000 rounds would be adequate on a night mission. As a matter of
interest, 90 percent of Lancaster missions made no contact with enemy night
fighters. Of the 10 percent that did, half were shot down. Give me a
Mosquito any day...."
Very interesting. Thank you. The Mosquito vs B-17 argument is another huge
controversy. You should get over to soc.history.war.world-war-ii and post
some of this information. That is, if you like to get swept up in heated
arguments.
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <8e1agi$dhp$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
The Mosquito B-17 argument is total nonsense proposed only by those who have
had zero combat and zero flying experience. I have yet to hear that argument
from anyone who has ever flown a mission in any bomber. To paraphrase the
philosphers Kant and Hume, logic and reason without experience is worthless.
The moment I hear that argument I know I am talking to an inexperienced amateur
"enthusiast" who really knows virtually nothing and is living in a dream world
of fantasy.
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <8e19pc$bm9$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
these were two different planes made for different roles. It makes just a smuch
sense to say that if we added armour and armament to the Lanc we could turn it
into a B-17. Pointless conjecture. Now if you could bake a cake that tastes
like steak, you would really have something.
Emmanuel.Gustin
: raid Lanc bomb load of between 8,000 and 9,000 lbs. My next step is to prove
: that the weight of ammo, armor plating, and the ball turret brought the
: B-17's performance down from what would otherwise be comparable performance
: to the Lanc. I've proven that the weight of guns alone, (13) .50 cal vs (8)
: .303 cal, accounted for over 600 lbs.
A wartime source put the weight of the B-17's armament at about 5700lb,
including all turrets and guns. I don't know whether that includes
ammunition. It probably doesn't include the gunners.
Of course it isn't that simple to calculate the difference: Carrying a gun
turret requires structural reinforcements, makes the aircraft bigger,
requires equipment for the gunner, and so on; that in turn means that more
fuel needs to be carried, and that requires more power and a larger
wing... The actual penalty on take-off weight can be two or three times
the weight of the additional equipment that is being carried.
As a pure and simple guess, I would estimate that the actual weight of
guns, turrets, gunners, ammunition, and gunner's equipment may have been
around 8000lb. It's a sobering thought that all this served to put a mass
of about 9lb on target: about 8000 rounds x hit probability of about 1% x
48.5 gram projectile weight / 453 gram in a pound. And then a hit
probability of 1% is a very optimistic estimate, fighter pilots only had a
probability of 2% on average and their task was much easier.
Personally I have always been of the opinion that the armament of the B-17
was at the very least poorly arranged. The waist gunners were too
inaccurate and had a too poor field of fire to be worth carrying; the
radio room gun was even worse. I think you could save 1000lb by removing
them, the ammunition and two gunners, without significantly affecting the
strenght of the B-17's defences. On the other hand, the lack of a nose gun
turret on the B-17F was a strange omission; the more difficult to explain
as contemporary British bombers did have nose turrets.
There was considerable debate within the 8th AF on the effectiveness of
the defensive armament; a number of commanders felt that at least some of
the guns were not worth carrying. Others were more optimistic. Many seem
to have argued that whatever their effectiveness, they were good for
morale.
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel Gustin <gus...@NoSpam.uia.ac.be>
Fighter Guns Page: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/
(Delete NoSpam. from my address. If you can't reach me, your host
may be on our spam filter list. Check http://www.uia.ac.be/cc/spam.html.)
ArtKramr
>Date: 4/24/00 9:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8e1sq2$7noqe$2...@fu-berlin.de>
>Personally I have always been of the opinion that the armament of the B-17
>was at the very least poorly arranged. The waist gunners were too
>inaccurate and had a too poor field of fire to be worth carrying; the
Is your opinion the result of the many missions and long hours in B-17's that
you spent over enemy targets fighting off Luftewaffe fighters?
Glenn Dowdy
>Can anyone help me with ammo weight? I've found references that say the
B-17
>carried approximately 5,000 rounds of Browning .50 cal ammo, and the
>Lancaster carried 14,000 rounds of Browning .303 cal ammo. I assume the
Lanc
>used the British rimmed .303 cartridge used in the Enfield (right). How
much
>did that ammo weigh?
My references put the weight of a 105 round belt of BMG at 14.56kg.
--
Glenn Dowdy
"You really need to urgently learn the lesson that
civilised debate demands that you recognise that
others may sincerely hold opinions contrary to your own."
Keith Willshaw
Harry Andreas
Peter...@image.dk wrote:
> In John Comer's (a B-17 flight engineer and top turret gunner) book "Combat
> Crew" (about his tour in the 381st BG), he writes in the paragraph covering
> their September 3rd 1943 mission to Romilly, that the standard ammo load was
> 7000 rounds, but he had decided to put an extra 1000 rounds aboard
though it was
> against the regulation to add more.
> But they had good relations with the armorer who could always get them the
> extra ammo they wanted. Which was every time a mission sounded like it would
> be extra mean.
> This practice nearly cost the crew it's life on a later mission, as John Comer
> writes.
> They had stacked all the extra ammo in the rear of the plane plus the tail
> gunner had been in the tail during takeoff, which had shifted the center of
> gravity so far aft that they barely managed to get airborne before the end of
> the field and nearly crashed on a field after just clearing some trees.
They made this incident into an episode of the TV show "12 O'clock High",
IIRC.
--
Harry Andreas
the engineering raconteur
replace baloney with computer to reply
Clark Martin
<tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"If we remove guns and armor we will of course bring the weight down. That's
>obvious. What are you trying to prove?"
>
>I'm trying to prove that the Lancaster and B-17 were approximately equal in
>terms of lifting ability, and that the apparently huge bomb load advantage
>of the Lancaster resulted from the smaller weight of defensive armament,
>armor and equipment needed for night operations. This may appear obvious to
>you and me, but it's not so obvious to some Brits. Until I used alot of
>references to published sources to refute their claims, they were making
>comments like "Lancaster - 22,000 lb bomb load. B-17 - 4,000 lb bomb load".
>From what I've read, it appears that the Lanc had one significant advantage
>over the B-17. It had a much longer range with any given load.
The Lanc did carry a 22,000 lb in the form of the Grand Slam earthquake
bomb. But only 617 and one other squadron carried it (619?). And they
had the biggest Merlin engines fitted in order to do it. 4,000 lb for the
B-17 sounds like the spec'd load for an early model. Most planes ended up
carrying well in excess of their original specified bomb load. This is
due to uprating of engines and such as well as the fact that the specified
bomb load originated in peace time requirements which were rather
conservative.
--
Clark Martin
Redwood City, CA, USA Macintosh / Internet Consulting
"I'm a designated driver on the Information Super Highway"
Tony Whitaker
have had zero combat and zero flying experience. I have yet to hear that
argument from anyone who has ever flown a mission in any bomber."
I have no combat or flying experience, but I agree with you FWIW. There are
people out there, who I say are "of the cult of the Mosquito", who seem to
think that the Mosquito could have replaced every aircraft used in WWII. And
I've learned it's just not worth the effort arguing with them about it. It's
like arguing with someone about religion. Hopeless.
Tony Whitaker
bomb bay. e.g., with a "little" work they could fit a Grandslam mostly
inside the airframe. While the bombay of the B-17 is a lot shorter."
That's true, but, IMO it wasn't a major advantage. Very few Grand Slams were
used, and most of the bombs carried by Lancs were either 1,000 lb bombs
(which a B-17 could also carry) or those cylindrical 4,000 lb or 8,000 lb
cookies (which weren't appropriate for precision bombing). If you look up
posts to soc.history.war.world-war-ii on deja news, you should be able to
find a long excerpt I posted regarding the Lancaster carrying the Grand
Slam. Only a heavily modified Lanc from which every ounce of excess weight
had been removed could barely get airborne with the Grand Slam. Even so,
they crossed the English coast at an altitude of 1,000 ft. They crossed the
enemy coast at 6,000 ft. They reached the target at 12,700 ft. It's really
funny. It's a story written by one of the pilots who flew the mission.
Tony Whitaker
someone whose reasoning skills are inferior to those of a glue sniffing
chipmunk. That is why Sveinson and his ilk do not post to this non-moderated
newsgroup. We would rip him a new rectum large enough to pass an undigested
watermellon without so much as a grunt. Over on the WWII newsgroup, his
stupidity is protected by protocol."
Woa! Harsh. He does admit to getting much of his information from bubble gum
cards. He isn't the only Mosquito cultist, though. I do have a source,
"Lancaster Bomber" by D.B. Tubbs (it's one of those Ballantine WWII series
of paperbacks) that says DeHavilland was pushing in 1943 for the replacement
of Lancasters with Mosquitos. They said (2) Mosquitos modified to carry (1)
4,000 lb cookie each carried more tonneage to Germany than (1) Lancaster,
which had an average bomb load of under 7500 lbs in 1943. They had the loss
statistics and other numbers to prove their point. You don't hear the
Mosquito people talking much about that, do you? Apparently, the Mosquito
with a 4,000 lb cookie could cruise to Berlin at 30,000 ft at around 300
mph. That really is quite impressive, but I still say that in daylight they
could have been intercepted and would have been slaughtered. At night,
however, it just might have worked.
Kerryn Offord
Tony Whitaker wrote:
<SNIP>
> From what I've read, it appears that the Lanc had one significant advantage
> over the B-17. It had a much longer range with any given load.
I thought one of the Lanc's advantages over the B-17 was the length of
C.C. Jordan
wrote:
Tony, you have discovered the solution to this inane argument. Ignore the
ranting of dolts such as SVEINSON (aka Polo). If the Lord our God came down
from heaven and rebuked him for his ignorance, Sveinson would argue his way
straight into hell. My advice to you is simple: Use your time to increase your
knowledge rather than attempt to educate someone whose reasoning skills
are inferior to those of a glue sniffing chipmunk. That is why Sveinson and his
ilk do not post to this non-moderated newsgroup. We would rip him a new
rectum large enough to pass an undigested watermellon without so much
as a grunt. Over on the WWII newsgroup, his stupidity is protected by protocol.
Here, however, you live and die by what you post. Besides, if Sveinson claimed
that the sun rises in the morning, I'd still open the curtain and look for
myself. Even that ascribes more credibility to him that he warrants.
ArtKramr
>Date: 4/24/00 4:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8e2n97$2kf$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>
>
>"The Mosquito B-17 argument is total nonsense proposed only by those who
>have had zero combat and zero flying experience. I have yet to hear that
>argument from anyone who has ever flown a mission in any bomber."
>
>I have no combat or flying experience, but I agree with you FWIW. There are
>people out there, who I say are "of the cult of the Mosquito", who seem to
>think that the Mosquito could have replaced every aircraft used in WWII. And
>I've learned it's just not worth the effort arguing with them about it. It's
>like arguing with someone about religion. Hopeless.
>
>
performance data. Even though some pilots on this NG tried to explain it to
them, they still didn't get it.
P. Wezeman
> In article <8e19pc$bm9$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, "Tony Whitaker"
> <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >"If we remove guns and armor we will of course bring the weight down. That's
> >obvious. What are you trying to prove?"
> >
> >I'm trying to prove that the Lancaster and B-17 were approximately equal in
> >terms of lifting ability, and that the apparently huge bomb load advantage
> >of the Lancaster resulted from the smaller weight of defensive armament,
> >armor and equipment needed for night operations. This may appear obvious to
> >you and me, but it's not so obvious to some Brits. Until I used alot of
> >references to published sources to refute their claims, they were making
> >comments like "Lancaster - 22,000 lb bomb load. B-17 - 4,000 lb bomb load".
> >From what I've read, it appears that the Lanc had one significant advantage
> >over the B-17. It had a much longer range with any given load.
While the advantage is nowhere close to 22,000 lb to 4,000 lb, the
Lanchaster is a substantially larger and more capable aircraft that the
B-17, more or less in the ratio of their engine power. The Lancaster
at the end of the war had four engines of abour 1,600 hp each whereas
the B-17 had four of about 1,200 hp. The Lancaster also had considerable
growth capability, as the same basic airframe was beefed up to take
griffon engines in place of the Merlins, at 2,200 hp each, after the
war as the Lincoln and Shackleton.
If you have the empty weight, maximum weight, maximum cruise
lift-to-drag ratio, and specific fuel consumption you can estimate the
range or radius of any aircraft with any given payload using the basic
Breguet range equation, and compare any two aircraft for which you have
these numbers. In the case of the B-17 the armor and armament has to
be considered as part of the useful load, as these were needed for its
daylight bombing missions. Similarly, when the B-29 was used for night
bombing in the Pacific most of the guns and gunners were left out and
the weight traded off for more range and bombload.
Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist
"Carpe Cyprinidae"
Tony Whitaker
performance data. Even though some pilots on this NG tried to explain it to
them, they still didn't get it."
One person posted a quote from some source that said the Mosquito with the
4,000 lb cookie "approached the target at 414 mph". That must have been the
speed in a shallow dive, right? Do you know details of the Mosquito's
performance with the 4,000 lb cookie?
Tony Whitaker
the B-17, more or less in the ratio of their engine power. ... If you have
the empty weight, maximum weight, maximum cruise lift-to-drag ratio, and
specific fuel consumption you can estimate the range or radius of any
aircraft with any given payload using the basic Breguet range equation, and
compare any two aircraft for which you have these numbers."
As a matter of fact, the max. weight - empty weight was what lit the light
bulb in my brain that said the two aircraft were roughly equal in lifting
capacity. From "Fighting Aircraft of World War II" by Bill Gunston:
B-17G Empty Weight = 32,720-35,800 lbs
B-17G Max. Loaded Weight = 65,600 lbs
Max. - Empty = 32,880-29,800 lbs
Lancaster Empty Weight = 36,900 lbs
Lancaster Max. Loaded Weight = 68,000 lbs (I'm discounting the 72,000 lb
overloaded weight with the Grand Slam because I now know the facts
concerning that weapon's use by the Lanc)
Max. - Empty = 31,100 lbs
Surprised? Concerning power output, you also need to consider the effect of
each aircraft's supercharging setup. The B-17's was better, so power did not
drop off as quickly as altitude was gained. From the same source:
B-17G Service Ceiling = 35,000 ft
Lancaster Service Ceiling = 24,500 ft
Nevertheless, the ranges for each are listed as:
B-17G = 1,100 miles with 12,800 lb bomb load
Lancaster = 1,660 miles with 14,000 lb bomb load
It doesn't say at what altitude and speed these ranges were achieved. If the
Lancaster's listed max. range occurred at 5,000 ft and 125 mph while the
B-17's listed max. range occurred at 20,000 ft and 165 mph, it's hardly a
fair comparison. And I do have accounts of Lancaster raids for which the
average altitude for the mission was under 10,000 ft.
Emmanuel.Gustin
: mph. That really is quite impressive, but I still say that in daylight they
: could have been intercepted and would have been slaughtered. At night,
: however, it just might have worked.
I suppose that some people would describe me as a "Mosquito cultist" (I
rather like the term) but I have never argued that _unescorted_ daylight
bombing by Mosquitos, on a large scale, would have been a wise thing to
do. But I am still of the opinion, and so far nobody has managed to
convince me otherwise, that if you put guns anywhere it is much better to
put them into an escort fighter than into a bomber. Escort fighters made
the difference between defeat and victory; even the B-17's impressive
array of gun turrets could not achieve that. Guns in a fighter are simply
a much more efficient weapons system; while it yet remains to be proven
that guns in a bomber are really worth their weight, drag, cost, and
associated gunner's deaths.
I am the first to admit that that is, in any case, 100% hindsight and that
one can't possibly blame the USAAF for not adopting the Mosquito as its
main bomber in 1942...
As far as _night_ bombing by Mosquitos is concerned, as you mentioned
yourself the statistics showed that the Mossie was a more economic bomb
delivery vehicle than even the Lancaster. Whether that would have remained
true if the Germans had concentrated all their efforts on the interception
of Mosquitos is another matter. Taking into account the severe defeats the
"heavies" suffered from the German nightfighters in the winter of 1943,
one can only admit that unescorted night bombing by Lancasters was also a
less than perfect concept.
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel Gustin <gus...@NoSpam.uia.ac.be>
Home at University of Antwerp: http://nat-www.uia.ac.be/~gustin/
Military Aircraft Database: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/
David Lentz
ArtKramr wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Weight of B-17 BMG Ammo
> >From: "Emmanuel.Gustin" gus...@hhipe.uia.ac.be
> >Date: 4/24/00 9:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <8e1sq2$7noqe$2...@fu-berlin.de>
>
> >Personally I have always been of the opinion that the armament of the B-17
> >was at the very least poorly arranged. The waist gunners were too
> >inaccurate and had a too poor field of fire to be worth carrying; the
>
> Is your opinion the result of the many missions and long hours in B-17's that
> you spent over enemy targets fighting off Luftewaffe fighters?
How important is the coverage of an individual Fort (B-17). The
principle of the LeMay Box was to get overlapping fields of
fire. With a lot Forts you have a lot fields of fire and a
formidable opponent.
The problem, or a problem, with the LeMay Box was that it
required tight formation flying which itself presented a problem.
As I recall the Forts shot down more enemy fighters than any
other United States type, albeit at a considerable cost.
David
g_al...@hotmail.com
>
> >"Lancaster Bomber" by D.B. Tubbs (it's one of those Ballantine WWII
series
> >of paperbacks) that says DeHavilland was pushing in 1943 for the
> replacement
> >of Lancasters with Mosquitos. They said (2) Mosquitos modified to
carry (1)
> >4,000 lb cookie each carried more tonneage to Germany than (1)
Lancaster,
> >which had an average bomb load of under 7500 lbs in 1943. They had
the loss
> >statistics and other numbers to prove their point. You don't hear the
> >Mosquito people talking much about that, do you?
>
> references, it was part of the case to create the
> Light Night Striking Force which took over the
> attack on Berlin from the Bomber Command
> main force in March 1944. In a pure weight of
> bombs versus cost of bomber versus losses
> sustained the Mosquito wins the contest in world
> war 2 in Europe as the most efficient bomber. That
> is, of course, not the same thing as saying it could
> replace all the other bomber types. In the posts I have
> seen it is rarely pointed out that about 2 Mosquitos
> could carry the same weight of bombs to Berlin as
> one Lancaster, rather that a Mosquito could
> carry about the same load to Berlin as a B-17.
> Then the USAAF versus RAF proxy war is declared
> open.
Actually, I think the numbers Tony mentioned are in the Ballantine book
by Edward Bishop, "Mosquito: Wooden Wonder," not the Tubbs book on the
Lanc (I've got both). The Mosquito vs. lanc argument has happened here
a few times, and I admit to being a Mossie partisan.
Just so those without access to the numbers are on the same page, here's
what Bishop writes was justification for the LNSF carrying 4,000 lb
cookies:
"Freeman's staff produced a paper whuch explained that the Lancaster
cost 2.8 times as much as the Mosquito to produce in terms of standard
man-hours, and that maintenance was in the same proportion. The paper
said that the Lancaster's average bomb load was 7,450 lb. (in 1943) but
that the 4,000 lb. Mosquito would average a 3,735 lb. load, allowing for
abortive sorties. But, whereas the Lancaster had averaged 28 sorties
per write-off on night raids, the Mosquitos' average write-off rate for
night operations was one every ninety-two sorties.
"Statistics showed that the Mosquito could drop over four and a half
times the number of bombs for a similar investment in Lancaster bombers.
Moreover, an improvement in German night defences leading to greater and
greater vulnerability of the slower and armed four-engined heavy bombers
was another factor which impressed the British Air Staff."
We can assume that the write-off rate for Mossies on night ops went up
somewhat when carrying 4,000lb. bombs. I don't have any figures for the
LNSF attrition rates, but carrying twice the normal payload would
presumably lower the ceiling and speed, leading to somewhat higher
interception rates, and probably to more accidents on take off and
climbout, assuming fuel loads remained the same. Even if we
assume the write-off rate doubled (and that's almost certainly way too
high), the Mossie stil comes out more cost effective than the Lanc by
2.25 times.
The biggest problem for the Mossie was production, and it seems that it
would have been difficult if not impossible to massively increase its
production rate, unless substantial parts of the a/c were redesigned in
metal (the wing, say). Let's leave aside the matter of how many more
could have been built, for the moment anyway.
By 1944, the Stirling was already off normal bomber ops, because its
ceiling and speed were the lowest of the three Brit heavies, making it
the target of choice for German defenses. After it was pulled, the
Halifax became the target of choice, because it had a lower ceiling and
speed than the Lanc. Mods to the Halifax to improve its survivability
rate included reducing its defensive armament to improve streamlining
and thus speed. Even so, by 1944 the Halifaxes were ordered to carry
pure incendiary loads (bulky, but lighter than HE), to boost speed and
ceiling, thus decreasing the loss rates.
In order to improve their survival chances, some Bomber Command crews
were jettisoning some of their bombload over the North Sea, or as soon
as they got over enemy territory, to improve their speed/ceiling. This
got to be such a large problem that Bomber Command re-wired the bomb
photo cameras to go off when the Cookie was dropped, rather than when
the last of the load was released. So, the greater theoretical bombload
carried by the heavies was often negated in practice, for reasons of
survival.
Taken all in all, and ignoring practical matters of production, I'd say
that the most effective solution for the Brits would have been to use
4,000lber. carrying Mossies to replace the Halifaxes, and load the Lancs
with incendiary-only loads. The cookies and incendiaries have vastly
different ballistic properties, so it's not as if they need to be
dropped together (Actually, you'd want the HE dropped first, to open up
the buildings, with incendiaries dropped afterwards). This decreases
losses two ways. First, all those vulnerable Halifaxes, with their
seven man crews, are replaced by much less vulnerable Mossies risking
only two men. Second, the Lancasters' ceiling and speed improve, which
protects them from more AAA and makes the German night fighters' job
much tougher, especially in the case of the Me-110, which had only a
marginal performance advantage over the heavies as it was. Removing the
top turret from the Lanc, and/or removing the nose turret and
streamlining it ala the Halifax, would have also decreased loss rates.
Obviously, we can't assume that the Germans wouldn't react to these
changes. Presumably, with the Me-110 rendered virtually impotent (and
it made up the majority of the night fighters), they'd have to try to
switch production to more useful types, like later model Ju-88s and the
He-219. Whether, by that stage of the war (say mid-43 on) they could
have done so, is problematical.
> >Apparently, the Mosquito
> >with a 4,000 lb cookie could cruise to Berlin at 30,000 ft at around
300
> >mph. That really is quite impressive, but I still say that in
daylight they
> >could have been intercepted and would have been slaughtered. At
night,
> >however, it just might have worked.
Long range cruise given in the Bishop book for a B.IV was apparently 265
TAS at 25,000 feet or so, Max. was 385 @ 22,000 feet, service ceiling
34,000 feet. A Lanc apparently cruised at 215TAS, much lower, with Max.
275 True @ 15,000 feet, ceiling 19,000 feet (Middlebrook, Tubbs for
B.Mk. 1). A B-17 normally cruised at 150-155IAS, which works out to
210-230TAS at typical operating altitudes of 21-27,000 feet.
>
> Unescorted day bombers were usually slaughtered.
> A stream of Mosquitos moving at 30,000 feet
> with Mustangs as escort would be a target the
> historical Luftaffe fighter defence could not easily
> handle, given the performance of the FW190A
> above about 20,000 feet.
There's an account in "JG26: Top Guns of the Luftwaffe," of one of the
first attempts at FW-190A rear interception of B-17s, where they were
unable to catch them on the way out, and the formation leader's engine
blew up while attempting to do so:-) While individual FW-190As were
sometimes able, with perfect GCI, to catch unalert Mossies, whether
fighter formations could do so is a big question. Of course, if Mossies
had operated in formation their speed and ceiling would have been
reduced as well, although not to the same extent as the heavies, as thre
would no need to fly so tightly together except on the bomb run.
> Of course by the time
> the production priorities are changed so enough
> Mosquitos are available the Luftwaffe will have
> probably figured out what is going on and changed
> the mix or types of fighters defending Germany.
That's the question; whether they could still do so. There's also the
question of high octane fuel availability. Once jets show up, the
Mossie's speed doesn't help much. Even without them, the main question
is whether the Mossie's higher speed and thus lower exposure time
compensates for its lack of armament and bombload, in daytime. Frontal
attacks would be more difficult than on heavies, both because it would
be more difficult to get there, and because the Mossies could fly in
looser formations so could take more evasive action. Rear attacks would
also be difficult (albeit much safer than on heavies), because the
closure would be very slow. If escorts are around, things are tough for
the Germans. One other advantage of the higher speed would be that the
escort wouldn't need to weave, which extends their range.
Guy
Stephen Harding
> Tony Whitaker <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> : mph. That really is quite impressive, but I still say that in daylight they
> : could have been intercepted and would have been slaughtered. At night,
> : however, it just might have worked.
>
> I suppose that some people would describe me as a "Mosquito cultist" (I
> rather like the term) but I have never argued that _unescorted_ daylight
> bombing by Mosquitos, on a large scale, would have been a wise thing to
> do. But I am still of the opinion, and so far nobody has managed to
> convince me otherwise, that if you put guns anywhere it is much better to
> put them into an escort fighter than into a bomber. Escort fighters made
> the difference between defeat and victory; even the B-17's impressive
> array of gun turrets could not achieve that. Guns in a fighter are simply
> a much more efficient weapons system; while it yet remains to be proven
> that guns in a bomber are really worth their weight, drag, cost, and
> associated gunner's deaths.
In the final summation, you may be correct. But that is only gained in
after-the-fact analysis of the results.
Putting men in an unarmed B-17 to do battle with the Luftwaffe doesn't
seem to be a good way to promote the war, even if statistically, it doesn't
matter.
Would the additional number of bombers lost with reduced flight crew (no
gunners) counter those actually lost? I'm inclined to believe probably
yes, even though the defense would soon learn the bombers were unarmed.
The caution in lining up on a B-17 would be lessened. Some numbers of
bombers probably succeeded in "fighting off" German fighters. Are these
counted in any sort of statistic? No bomber lost; no German fighter shot
down; A "non event" statistically.
I don't see how you could get crews into such unarmed bombers. You have
to feel you can fight back, even if in actuality it makes no difference
over-all.
I'll hop into a Spit or P-38 photo recon with no guns because I'm alone
and less noticeable, and can go fast and probably not be intercepted. I
would want no part of an unarmed B-17 daylight formation! In the end,
people need some hope they can survive, even if it's hyped.
SMH
lrrcp
Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "I thought one of the Lanc's advantages over the B-17
> was the length of it's
> bomb bay. e.g., with a "little" work they could fit a
> Grandslam mostly
> used, and most of the bombs carried by Lancs were
> had been removed could barely get airborne with the
> Grand Slam. Even so,
> they crossed the English coast at an altitude of 1,000
> ft. They crossed the
> enemy coast at 6,000 ft. They reached the target at
> 12,700 ft. It's really
> funny. It's a story written by one of the pilots who
> flew the mission.
bombs, one under each wing?
tell the Brits what the Lancaster could do the B-29 could
do Twice as well.
Any way the B-17 was overall a older design
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Tony Whitaker
otherwise, that if you put guns anywhere it is much better to put them into
more efficient weapons system..."
No bomber, not even the Mosquito, had enough speed with a heavy bomb load to
escape interception. Given that the slow, heavily laden bomber, whatever
type it is, WILL be intercepted, at least in daylight, it will require
defensive armament. An unarmed, lightly armored bomber like the Mosquito
also does not inspire the defenders to carry heavy weapons and additional
armor. The Luftwaffe seriously degraded the performance of their
interceptors by adding very heavy armament and armor needed to get close to
and shoot down B-17s. This made them easier prey for the escorts. If
Mosquitos had replaced B-17s, the Luftwaffe would have done the opposite -
lighten and increase the interceptors' performance as much as possible. This
would have made the interceptors more difficult prey for the escorts. You
can't see the logic of this?
Tony Whitaker
I meant that two Mosquitos replacing each Lancaster, or (5) replacing (3) -
whatever DeHavilland's statistics supported - might have been able to
accomplish the same level of destruction with fewer losses because at night,
threatened by lower performance night fighters, the Mosquito's performance
advantage relative to the Lancs might have been enough to significantly
reduce losses. They were also harder to detect with radar, right?
Tony Whitaker
Edward Bishop, "Mosquito: Wooden Wonder," not the Tubbs book on the Lanc
(I've got both)."
You're right. I also have both, and I got them mixed up.
lrrcp
> In the final summation, you may be correct. But that
> is only gained in
> after-the-fact analysis of the results.
> Putting men in an unarmed B-17 to do battle with the
> Luftwaffe doesn't
> seem to be a good way to promote the war, even if
> statistically, it doesn't
> matter.
> Would the additional number of bombers lost with
> reduced flight crew (no
> gunners) counter those actually lost? I'm inclined to
> believe probably
> yes, even though the defense would soon learn the
> bombers were unarmed.
I have to disagree with this.
1) The Germans Hated attacking the heavy bombers, they felt
that fighter vs fighter was less dangerouse than attacking
the daylight bomber formations.
2) The German fighters were armored to counter the bombers
gunners, thus they become less agile and easier for the
escorts to attack.
3) The American .50 cal machine guns firing inmase tended
to damage the German fighters often before they were even
in range with their own weapons.
4) The Germans felt that attacking bombers was testing fate.
> The caution in lining up on a B-17 would be lessened.
> Some numbers of
> bombers probably succeeded in "fighting off" German
> fighters. Are these
> counted in any sort of statistic? No bomber lost; no
> German fighter shot
> down; A "non event" statistically.
This did happen with escorts, in some cases just breaking
up the attacking fighters formations was enough to safe
guard the bombers.
> I don't see how you could get crews into such unarmed
> bombers. You have
> to feel you can fight back, even if in actuality it
> makes no difference
> over-all.
The USAAF did use Gunships, B-17's with more weapons to
protect the lead bombers.
> I'll hop into a Spit or P-38 photo recon with no guns
> because I'm alone
> and less noticeable, and can go fast and probably not
> be intercepted. I
> would want no part of an unarmed B-17 daylight
> formation! In the end,
> people need some hope they can survive, even if it's
The Germans did improve the high altitude fighters
performance with the FWD9 and the Ta152 both of which were
able to catch the Mossie.
lrrcp
> slam
> > bombs, one under each wing?
> operationally
I belive they were used upon Japan at least once as the
plane had to be setup to do so.
Tony Whitaker
> On the ground the wings were flat, with a Grand Slam
> on board the crews of the other non grand slam
> carrying bombers were intially rather alarmed at how
> much the wings were bending.
Here's my whole post which I dug out of Deja News. It's the only result for
key words Lancaster, cane, bus, and stab.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you read what the latter day revisionists are posting, creditting the
B-17 with a mighty bomb load when it carried 4,000 lbs. the same as the
Mosquito and one-fifth of the Lancaster load ..."
===========================================
I hate to keep bursting your little Lancaster bubble with facts from
published sources, but here it is again from "Lancaster Bomber" by D.B.
Tubbs, page 142:
"Illustrated is a B I (Special) of the 'Dambusters' squadron carrying the
largest bomb to be used in the war, the Barnes Wallis-designed 22,000 lb
Grand Slam. ... Both the nose and mid-upper turrets were removed and plated
over to save weight and drag, and a new type of undercarriage, developed for
the Lancaster's successor, the Lincoln, was fitted to take the considerable
extra weight of the bomb."
>From "Lancaster" by M. Garbett and B. Goulding, page 245-248:
"The first doubts had tip-toed into our minds when we saw the mother and
father of all trucks wheel onto the airfield ... with Barnes Wallis's 10-ton
brainchild. ... The only kite which could even make a brave stab at the job
... had to be the Lancaster. And the Lancaster I was to fly was no ordinary
Lanc. It didn't even look like a complete aircraft. ... The mid-upper turret
had gone and the hole faired over. The front turret was minus one gun, the
rear turret minus a brace of the comforting Browning foursome. There was
ammunition for a two-second burst per gun. ... We would carry no wireless
operator or W/T sets on the trip. The navigator had been de-seated from his
normal alloy and leather throne, and was to ensconce himself in a cane chair
as part of the fight against a 10-ton weight penalty. The pilot - me - was
to feel rather exposed about his derriere with the armour-plate taken out
from under the driver's seat. ... The Lancaster's fuselage had been scooped
out along the under belly from about the pilot's position, 33 ft rearwards
to make a great gouge into which fit the Grand Slam. Fueling was a case of
metering enough fuel for the flight out and back with no frills. Not even an
extra 100 gallons for the gremlins. ... I knew - we all knew - that take-off
would be a time of trying to coax a hopelessly overloaded aircraft off the
runway ... We were proceeding at less than 100 ft. In retrospect, I feel our
climb pattern must have looked rather like the trace of a mad temperature
chart graph, of a patient in extremis from triple influenza. Gain a few
precious feet and try to stop counting grass blades. Milk up a few degrees
of flap and lose that height gain. Fly round a church, a building, Merlins
howling, knowing full well that if we met a bus on the road, we'd have to
fly through the damned thing. ... The Lancaster crossed the British coast at
about 1,000 ft... From memory, we crossed the enemy coast at 6,000 ft,
thanks to constant fuel consumption and precious little else apart from
sheer hand-flying, feeling for each foot of height. But it still felt low
enough to be clobbered by a rock thrown up by some stray German soldier of
flak-gunner. All through, I remembered the bombing leader's warning. 'Don't
drop under 14,000 ft ...' ... We managed to coax this flying bomb up to
about 12,700 ft. And there she stayed ..."
Is it quite clear that no ordinary Lancaster could carry 20,000 lbs of
bombs? Is it also quite clear that even a heavily modified Lancaster from
which every ounce of excess weight had been removed was barely able to
struggle into the sky? The typical bomb load for a Lancaster bombing Berlin
was somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000 lbs. The B-17 could have carried over
12,800 lbs to Berlin if it had not required the heavy defensive armament,
armor plating, and high altitude performance necessary for survival in
daylight operations.
>>>>>> POP <<<<<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why do you think the 4, 8 (and 12),000 lb blast bombs were not suitable for
precision bombing? Their ballistics were not that bad given the average
bombing errors of the heavy bombers."
Martin Middlebrook writes in "The Nuremberg Raid - 30-31 March 1944", page
29:
"The 4,000-pounders - called 'Blockbusters' or 'Cookies' - were simply
thin-skinned cylinders packed with explosive. They had no penetrating power
and were not very accurate but they produced a tremendous blast effect."
I've also seen pictures of these bombs. I know it's dangerous to base
conclusions on "common sense", but they sure don't look to me like they'd be
very accurate. Surely these things just went tumbling wildly to Earth when
released.
>
> Geoffrey Sinclair
>
>
lrrcp
fighters, also the Germans did use Day fighters in the nite
role, using radio beacons to form them up at the bombers
altitude and then using radar controlers to direct them to
the bombers.
Though the number of kills per plane used were lower they
were effective a number of times.
Nuremberg is a case where all the elements favored the
Germans on a night bomber mission by RAF units.
795 bombers flew this mission on the night of March 30/31
the year is not stated.
The German Night fighters accounted for 79 bombers this
night with Flak brainging the total to 94 lost.
Note the Germans this nite sent up 246 fighters.
but still 1 out of 10 bombers going down was one of the few
Great nite encounters.
10/NJG 11 the only Jet night fighter unit in the German air
force was credited with destroying 43 mossie's, along with
5 high altitude recon planes in only 70 sorties.
lrrcp
Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "Can I ask what you mean by "might have worked"?"
> I meant that two Mosquitos replacing each Lancaster,
> or (5) replacing (3) -
> whatever DeHavilland's statistics supported - might
> have been able to
> accomplish the same level of destruction with fewer
> losses because at night,
> threatened by lower performance night fighters, the
> Mosquito's performance
> advantage relative to the Lancs might have been enough
> to significantly
> reduce losses. They were also harder to detect with
> radar, right?
night fighters were able to locate and destroy a number.
The Mossie was built of plywood, there had to be a limit on
the amount of production possible either via resources or
man power.
The Lancs could put more bombs per plane on target, also
the speed factor, consider dropping bombs at 180ias vs
275ias making the lancs more accurate.
there is also the factor the British produced a pasive
detection system for their bombers which enabled them to
locate the German nite fighters radar and fire on them thus
enhanceing their servivablity.
The first time the Germans ran into a bomber with this
device the bombers gunner accounted for 3 German Me110's
night fighters.
John L.
I have only read your message, so you may already have the
correct answer, from the B24D armament manual:
30.25 Lbs per 100 rounds using metalic links
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
John L.
<tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> to the Lanc. I've proven that the weight of guns alone, (13) .50
> cal vs (8)
> ..303 cal, accounted for over 600 lbs.
Actually at a weight 74 Lbs each, the total for 13
50 (basic) HMG equals 962 Lbs..
Geoffrey Sinclair
Tony Whitaker wrote in message <8e2np1$g4j$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>...
>"I thought one of the Lanc's advantages over the B-17 was the length of
it's
>bomb bay. e.g., with a "little" work they could fit a Grandslam mostly
>
were
>used, and most of the bombs carried by Lancs were either 1,000 lb bombs
>(which a B-17 could also carry) or those cylindrical 4,000 lb or 8,000 lb
>cookies (which weren't appropriate for precision bombing).
From the accounts I have seen the large bomb bay was
considered very useful, since it meant the Lancaster
could cary a very wide variety of bomb loads. I believe
it was the only allied bomber that could carry bombs
larger than 2,000 lb bombs internally, apart from the
Mosquito (and Halifax?)
Why do you think the 4, 8 (and 12),000 lb blast bombs
were not suitable for precision bombing? Their ballistics
were not that bad given the average bombing errors
of the heavy bombers.
> Only a heavily modified Lanc from which every ounce of excess weight
>had been removed could barely get airborne with the Grand Slam. Even so,
>they crossed the English coast at an altitude of 1,000 ft. They crossed the
>enemy coast at 6,000 ft. They reached the target at 12,700 ft. It's really
>funny. It's a story written by one of the pilots who flew the mission.
Did he mention the beautiful curve the wings formed?
On the ground the wings were flat, with a Grand Slam
on board the crews of the other non grand slam
carrying bombers were intially rather alarmed at how
much the wings were bending.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Geoffrey Sinclair
Tony Whitaker wrote in message <8e2sl0$8ai$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>"Lancaster Bomber" by D.B. Tubbs (it's one of those Ballantine WWII series
>of paperbacks) that says DeHavilland was pushing in 1943 for the
replacement
>of Lancasters with Mosquitos. They said (2) Mosquitos modified to carry (1)
>4,000 lb cookie each carried more tonneage to Germany than (1) Lancaster,
>which had an average bomb load of under 7500 lbs in 1943. They had the loss
>statistics and other numbers to prove their point. You don't hear the
>Mosquito people talking much about that, do you?
The DeHavilland calculation is reported in a lot of
references, it was part of the case to create the
Light Night Striking Force which took over the
attack on Berlin from the Bomber Command
main force in March 1944. In a pure weight of
bombs versus cost of bomber versus losses
sustained the Mosquito wins the contest in world
war 2 in Europe as the most efficient bomber. That
is, of course, not the same thing as saying it could
replace all the other bomber types. In the posts I have
seen it is rarely pointed out that about 2 Mosquitos
could carry the same weight of bombs to Berlin as
one Lancaster, rather that a Mosquito could
carry about the same load to Berlin as a B-17.
Then the USAAF versus RAF proxy war is declared
open.
>Apparently, the Mosquito
>with a 4,000 lb cookie could cruise to Berlin at 30,000 ft at around 300
>mph. That really is quite impressive, but I still say that in daylight they
>could have been intercepted and would have been slaughtered. At night,
>however, it just might have worked.
Unescorted day bombers were usually slaughtered.
A stream of Mosquitos moving at 30,000 feet
with Mustangs as escort would be a target the
historical Luftaffe fighter defence could not easily
handle, given the performance of the FW190A
above about 20,000 feet. Of course by the time
the production priorities are changed so enough
Mosquitos are available the Luftwaffe will have
probably figured out what is going on and changed
the mix or types of fighters defending Germany.
Have you read "The Other Battle" by Peter
Hincliffe, subtitled Luftwaffe Night Aces
Versus Bomber Command? The Germans
were very frustrated in not being able to
easily kill Mosquitos but my reading of the
defence priorities is that there were far more
4 engined bombers and killing one of them
was better than killing a Mosquito.
The Mosquitos dropped around 10,000 4,000lb
bombs, most of them on Berlin, in what amounted
to sustained harassment raids. Can I ask what
you mean by "might have worked"?
Geoffrey Sinclair
Geoffrey Sinclair
Tony Whitaker wrote in message <8e3tel$dac$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>...
>One person posted a quote from some source that said the Mosquito with the
>4,000 lb cookie "approached the target at 414 mph". That must have been the
>speed in a shallow dive, right? Do you know details of the Mosquito's
>performance with the 4,000 lb cookie?
Mosquito B XIV Maximum speed 415 mph at 28,000 feet, service
ceiling 37,000 feet, up to 5,000 lb of bombs. Range with 4,000 lb
bomb 1,485 miles. 432 built, from The British Bomber, Mason.
So yes, the attack would have been in a shallow dive, given the
top speed would be made after releasing the bomb.
The crew report of a specially lightened He-219 that managed
to kill 2 mosquitos talk of intercepting a mosquito bound for
Berlin at 9,700 metres altitude, about 31 to 32,000 feet and
having to run at full throttle to catch the machine. From the
Other Battle, Hinchliffe.
Geoffrey Sinclair.
Keith Willshaw
lrrcp <lrrcpN...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0345ff00...@usw-ex0109-068.remarq.com...
> In article <8e2np1$g4j$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>, "Tony
> Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > "I thought one of the Lanc's advantages over the B-17
> > was the length of it's
> > bomb bay. e.g., with a "little" work they could fit a
> > Grandslam mostly
> > used, and most of the bombs carried by Lancs were
> > had been removed could barely get airborne with the
> > Grand Slam. Even so,
> > they crossed the English coast at an altitude of 1,000
> > ft. They crossed the
> > enemy coast at 6,000 ft. They reached the target at
> > 12,700 ft. It's really
> > funny. It's a story written by one of the pilots who
> > flew the mission.
> bombs, one under each wing?
In theory - I dont believe it was ever used operationally
Keith
C.C. Jordan
wrote:
>Unescorted day bombers were usually slaughtered.
>A stream of Mosquitos moving at 30,000 feet
>with Mustangs as escort would be a target the
>historical Luftaffe fighter defence could not easily
>handle, given the performance of the FW190A
>above about 20,000 feet. Of course by the time
>the production priorities are changed so enough
>Mosquitos are available the Luftwaffe will have
>probably figured out what is going on and changed
>the mix or types of fighters defending Germany.
One of the problems with "bomber streams" is that they are very difficult
to protect. This is exacerbated greatly in daylight. If you spead out your
bombers in long streams, you must do likewise with the escort. This will
allow the Luftwaffe to obtain local superiority and the result would be
the loss of both bombers and escorts. You also face the problem of bomb
concentration. Because targets will quickly become masked by the smoke
caused by earlier attacks, bombers arriving later will have the target largely,
if not completely obscured. So, it would be necessary to concentrate the
Mosquitos into large compact formations. However, there exists serious
drawbacks here as well. Consider that the Mossie is largely defenceless.
It relies upon speed for defence. However, loaded with 4,000 lbs of bombs
cruise speeds will not be very high. Add to that the fuel comsumed in forming up
these formations and the need to conserve fuel by using more efficient cruise
speeds, and you have the Mosquitos plodding along at substantially less than
300 mph. So, without any way to defend against attack, what happens when
some of the German fighters break through the escort (and they certainly will)?
It would be very easy to break up the Mosquito formation. The only defence
would be to drop their bombload, firewall the throttles and run. Unlike the
American heavy bombers, the Mossie would exact no toll from the Luftwaffe.
Whereas the American heavies are estimated to have destroyed up to 6,700
Germans fighters, the Mossies could do nothing more than wave their
nappy at the attacking aircraft. Besides, what does another 6,000+ German
fighters and pilots do to the balance of airpower during the course of the air
war?
The problem with the majority of proposals specifying the Mosquito is a lack
of "real world" understanding of the serious complications involved. These
folks also tend to ignore the fact that true high performance Mossies
(bombers) did not enter service until rather late in the conflict. The 380 mph,
2,000 lb bomb load B.Mk.IV was not going to make the grade.
You are correct of course, if the Luftwaffe suspected a switch to high-speed
light bombers, they would have placed more emphasis on speed and less
on firepower. There many good reasons for rejecting the high-speed light
bomber concept.
>
>Have you read "The Other Battle" by Peter
>Hincliffe, subtitled Luftwaffe Night Aces
>Versus Bomber Command? The Germans
>were very frustrated in not being able to
>easily kill Mosquitos but my reading of the
>defence priorities is that there were far more
>4 engined bombers and killing one of them
>was better than killing a Mosquito.
Indeed. The Mossies were little more than an annoyance.
The heavies were the real threat. Moreover, little resources
were available to counter the Mossies because of the commitment
to defeat the heavy bombers. The largest reason that the Mosquito
was not intercepted more often stems from the relatively low priority
assigned to this effort. Add to this that the Mosquito never materialized
into a serious threat. Had they done so, the Luftwaffe would have
certainly replied in both tactics and weapons.
The fact that heavy bombers still have a significant role to play 55
years after the war, clearly shows that tactical aircraft could perform
their (the heavy bombers) mission with equal success or efficiency.
Heavy bombers had important roles in both Korea and Vietnam. Not
to mention the Gulf War.
My regards
g_al...@hotmail.com
I once tried to do the same analysis you're doing, because the numbers
bugged me also. The most likely problem, as I see it, is what is
included in the empty weights. Are these actual empty weights for both
a/c, operationally empty, empty equipped, basic, or what have you, and
just what does each category include for each a/c? I was surprised on
reading "America's Hundred Thousand" to find such a great variance on
just what was and wasn't included in each category, which often varied
between services, a/c types, and even particular models of the same a/c!
Usually, empty weight doesn't include the weight of any fluids,
armament, or even much operational equipment (like radios or bomb
racks). Operationally empty, empty equipped or basic weights tend to
be more representative figures for a/c sans usable fuel and ammo, but
even then various items like armor or flak suits etc. are often left
out.
Then, there's the fact that the B-17s and B-24s flew in tight
formations, which meant they had to spend time assembling and climbing
to high altitudes, throttle-jockeying all the way, while the RAF bombers
didn't have to do any of this, which affects range and radius.
Anyway, what are the fuel loads each a/c can carry? Tubbs gives a max.
fuel load for the Lanc (model unstated) of 2,154 gal. These are
presumably Imperial gallons, so to compare with the B-17 we need to
multiply by 1.2, or 2,585 U.S. Gallons. Assuming 6 lb./gal., that's
15,509 lb. of fuel.
Caidin gives some representative numbers for the B-17G:
Empty weight, 32,720lb.
Equipped wgt. 38,000lb.
Normal Loaded 55,000lb.
Max. Overload 72,000lb.
Carrying 4,000lb. bomb load, B-17G will go 1,850 miles in 8.7 hours
(avg. spd. 213mph), @ 63,500 lb. TOW, @ 25,000 feet cruise. Fuel load
for this mission is 2,810 U.S. gallons. (I don't know if these figures
are for a single a/c, or represent a typical mission in formation. I
suspect the former).
g_al...@hotmail.com
"Tony Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "But I am still of the opinion, and so far nobody has managed to
convince me
> otherwise, that if you put guns anywhere it is much better to put them
into
> an escort fighter than into a bomber.... Guns in a fighter are simply
a much
> more efficient weapons system..."
>
> No bomber, not even the Mosquito, had enough speed with a heavy bomb
load to
> escape interception.
But a combination of speed and altitude capability often does confer
immunity or nearly so, as the Mosquito PR a/c demonstrated, and as was
shown by the Canberra later.
> Given that the slow, heavily laden bomber,
>whatever
> type it is, WILL be intercepted, at least in daylight, it will require
> defensive armament.
The question is, does it make the most sense to load your bombers as
heavily as possible, or load them lighter to improve their performance,
because the loss rate is enough lower to make that the more cost
effective solution? There were proponents of both methods in bomber
Command (1 Group was a max. bomb load group), and the debate still
exists today. In Vietnam, we didn't load our a/c going downtown with
the max. bomb loads they could carry, because their performance was
degaded so much that they couldn't defend themselves without
jettisoning. So, we deliberately gave them lighter bombloads, which
also meant that they could carry more fuel and thus use higher power
settings, avoiding more of the defenses through speed and evasive
routing. Same thing goes today, when we've stopped using MERs on US
F/A a/c because it degrades the performance too much against modern
defenses (and higher accuracy allows us to carry fewer weapons to do the
same job).
> An unarmed, lightly armored bomber like the
>Mosquito
> also does not inspire the defenders to carry heavy weapons and
additional
> armor. The Luftwaffe seriously degraded the performance of their
> interceptors by adding very heavy armament and armor needed to get
close to
> and shoot down B-17s. This made them easier prey for the escorts. If
> Mosquitos had replaced B-17s, the Luftwaffe would have done the
opposite -
> lighten and increase the interceptors' performance as much as
possible. This
> would have made the interceptors more difficult prey for the escorts.
You
> can't see the logic of this?
Excellent point. OTOH, it was the twin-engined heavy fighters that did
most of the damage to heavy bomber formations, knocking bombers out of
formation so they could be picked off singly. Once our escorts got long
enough legs to go with the bombers the whole way, the twin-engined
German fighters were meat on the table. If you were using Mossies,
OTOH, the twin-engined fighters probably wouldn't be a factor at all, as
they wouldn't be able to even get to the Mossies. So, while the German
single-engined fighters would get a performance benefit from not having
to carry heavy guns and rockets, the twins would be out of the picture
completely. Now let's add in the greater range the escorts have through
not needing to weave, the shorter warning time available to the
interceptors (partially offset by improved climb through lighter
armament), the need to operate at higher power settings to
intercept and close with the Mossies (increasing fuel burn and lowering
TBOs) and the consequent range problems for the interceptors (again,
partially offset by lighter armament giving higher interceptor
performance), and the picture seems by no means as clear to me as you
make it out to be.
However, all that being said, I think the case for the Mossie replacing
the B-17 in Europe is a much tougher sell than the one for it replacing
the Halifax (not the Lancaster), although the B-24 is more finely
balanced. The 4,000lb. cookie is not by any means a precision weapon
(although the 8th AAF's CEP for day visual bombing was 3,300 feet, so
precision is a relative term). Other than the 4,000-lber., a Mosquito
can only carry 4 500 lb. bombs internally, and two externally (but
degrading performance and range), while a B-17 can carry 12 internally.
OTOH, Mossies achieved much higher precision when going in low without
escort, than heavies were capable of at altitude, often with with
comparable loss rates. Going in low stills seems a bad idea, on the
whole. Perhaps glide bombing attacks at medium altitude would be the
ticket, improving accuracy enough to compensate for the smaller
bombloads, while keeping above the smaller Flak guns (20/37mm). The
Brits did a fair amount of this without escorts, with reasonable
success, so I have to wonder how things would go if they'd had escort
all the way.
One point in the heavies' favor by day was the fear factor: going in to
attack a combat box of heavies was something that took a lot out of
German pilots' morale. Attacking a box of unarmed Mossies would have no
such effect, although I suppose that the leads could be in glazed nose
bombers with navigators, with most wingmen flying solo and having nose
guns, pickling on the lead.
Anyway, points for disussion.
Emmanuel.Gustin
: protect the lead bombers.
It is correct that the USAAF built and tested a few heavily-armed gunship
versions of the B-17 (as the B-40) and the B-24 (as the B-41). But after
evaluation these had to be considered a failure, and a burden to the
formation because they were slower than a standard B-17 after this had
dropped its bombs. So they were discontinued after only a handful had been
built. The only good that came of it was the nose turret that was
installed on the B-17G.
: The Germans did improve the high altitude fighters
: performance with the FWD9 and the Ta152 both of which were
: able to catch the Mossie.
In theory, perhaps, but in practice even a Me 262 could have a hard time
to catch a late-model PR Mosquito or Spitfire. (The same was true, as the
British later discovered during exercises, for a Meteor or Vampire.) One
of the first observations of the Me 262 in combat was made by a Mosquito,
but it got away. The performance margin of the Fw 190D-9 just was not
large enough. Only when the first swept-wing jet fighters appeared these
PR aircraft became too vulnerable (post-war espionage missions over the
USSR had to be discontinued).
The point is that being faster is not enough, you have to have a speed
advantage large enough to overcome the penalty of climbing towards the
enemy and flying an intercept trajectory.
Emmanuel Gustin <gus...@NoSpam.uia.ac.be>
g_al...@hotmail.com
Jor...@worldwar2aviation.com (C.C. Jordan) wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:36:49 GMT, Peter Bjoern <Peter...@image.dk>
wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 14:05:20 -0400 a carbon-based biped by the name
of "Tony
> >Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Can anyone help me with ammo weight? I've found references that say
the B-17
> >>carried approximately 5,000 rounds of Browning .50 cal ammo, and the
> >>Lancaster carried 14,000 rounds of Browning .303 cal ammo. I assume
the Lanc
> >>used the British rimmed .303 cartridge used in the Enfield (right).
How much
> >>did that ammo weigh?
> >
> >In John Comer's (a B-17 flight engineer and top turret gunner) book
"Combat
> >Crew" (about his tour in the 381st BG), he writes in the paragraph
covering
> >their September 3rd 1943 mission to Romilly, that the standard ammo
load was
> >7000 rounds, but he had decided to put an extra 1000 rounds aboard
though it was
> >against the regulation to add more.
>
> The typical load-out was 6,380 rnds., or about 1,300 lbs. Some Groups
> would load more more if the mission allowed for less than full fuel
tanks.
> Individual crews would sometimes stow additional ammo aboard. However,
> this was usually not a good idea. The extra weight could not be offset
by
> the mythical advantage of 1,000 to 2,000 rounds that would likely
never be
> used anyway. Show me a crew who fired off 8,000 rounds of .50 cal, and
> I would be very interested in knowing what they were shooting at.
C.C., not too long ago, I read a couple of books by B-17 crews, both of
who had been on many of the Summer-Fall 1943 missions; both made
Regensberg-Schweinfurt and Black Thursday. In at least one of the
books, the author mentions that some crews loaded up on extra ammo and
flak suits (to sit or stand on) when they learned they were going to
Schweinfurt again (Oct. 14th.) Some pilots told them to off load it,
some went along with it. I can't remember which was the case with the
author's a/c, but at least one of the aircrews was quite happy they'd
taken the extra ammo, and had no trouble finding something to shoot
it at:-) They did make sure not to put the extra ammo cans in the tail,
though. IIRC, most were stuck in the radio compartment, at least for
takeoff and assembly, but don't quote me on any details. I think the
two books were "Half a Wing, Three Engines and a Prayer," and "Fall of
Fortresses." The first one, in particular, is quite useful (it details
a whole tour).
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <8e5o9n$8lehc$1...@fu-berlin.de>
>
>: The USAAF did use Gunships, B-17's with more weapons to
>In theory, perhaps, but in practice even a Me 262 could have a hard time
>to catch a late-model PR Mosquito or Spitfire. (The same was true, as the
Total and absolute bullshit! Have you ever tangled assholes with an ME-262? No?
Well I have and you are talking pure crap.
F/O Arthur Kramer
344th Bomb Group, 9th Air Force
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
P. Wezeman
large numbers of Mosquito fighter-bombers in place of B-17's in daylight
attacks on Germany:
----snip----
> attack a combat box of heavies was something that took a lot out of
> German pilots' morale. Attacking a box of unarmed Mossies would have no
> such effect, although I suppose that the leads could be in glazed nose
> bombers with navigators, with most wingmen flying solo and having nose
> guns, pickling on the lead.
>
> Anyway, points for disussion.
Modern thinking would be that each attacking aircraft should
have at least some air-to-air capability. Even though they are not
the equal of a dedicated fighter, the sheer numbers of the attacking
planes make them dangerous. In modern exercises F-15's have been
shot down when attempting to intercept Jaguars; they didn't realize
that there were three pairs of Jaguars instead of the usual two.
As soon as the Mosquitos had released their bombs, they would
have performance equal or superior to the interceptors. Not to
minimize the difficulty of training pilots in both bombing and air
to air, but it could be really intimidating to be surrounded by
perhaps 1,000 enemy planes that could chase you down as a heavy
bomber simply could not. Imagine expending your ammunition and most
of your fuel (doesn't take long with a Me-109G) attacking a bomber
formation and then worrying that three or four Mosquitos with two 20 mm
cannon each will follow you as you attempt to return to base. If they
merely force you to use the remainder of your fuel in maneuvering
to avoid them they will have caused the loss of the aircraft. If
the interceptors keep some fuel and ammo in reserve to get back to
base, they will reduce their effectiveness.
As you say, points for discussion.
Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist
"Carpe Cyprinidae"
Keith Willshaw
Tony Whitaker <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8e57so$reg$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Can I ask what you mean by "might have worked"?"
>
(3) -
> accomplish the same level of destruction with fewer losses because at
night,
Actually not . The mosquito could not lift the 8000 lb and heavier weapons
for one thing.
Lets see a Mosquito sink the Tirpitz or bust a U-Boat pen with Tallboy
> threatened by lower performance night fighters, the Mosquito's performance
> advantage relative to the Lancs might have been enough to significantly
> reduce losses. They were also harder to detect with radar, right?
>
>
As to radar note that the Germans had no problem seeing Mosquito's
Wood may be transparent to some degree but the engines , bombs
Undercarriage etc is not.
Note further that the production facilities for building Lancasters
where quite different than those used for building Mosquitos
There is a tendency to believe in miracle cures and deride the
planners of the day as duffers but those guiding the efforts
of the war industries in Britain achieved miracles of production and
had the highest incentive. They were fighting for their lives
and freedom.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
lrrcp <lrrcpN...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > > did you know a B-29 carried Two of the 22,000 grand
> > slam
> > > bombs, one under each wing?
> > In theory - I dont believe it was ever used
> > operationally
> plane had to be setup to do so.
>
>
I'd be interested in a cite on this
Keith
Keith Willshaw
P. Wezeman <pwez...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.21.000426...@black.weeg.uiowa.edu...
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 g_al...@hotmail.com wrote, on the subject of using
>
> Modern thinking would be that each attacking aircraft should
> have at least some air-to-air capability. Even though they are not
> the equal of a dedicated fighter, the sheer numbers of the attacking
> planes make them dangerous. In modern exercises F-15's have been
> shot down when attempting to intercept Jaguars; they didn't realize
> that there were three pairs of Jaguars instead of the usual two.
> As soon as the Mosquitos had released their bombs, they would
> have performance equal or superior to the interceptors. Not to
> minimize the difficulty of training pilots in both bombing and air
> to air, but it could be really intimidating to be surrounded by
> perhaps 1,000 enemy planes that could chase you down as a heavy
> bomber simply could not.
Note that bomber versions of the Mosuito did not have the
4x20 mm cannon armananent of the fighter variants
some FB versions retained the 4x303 guns at the cost of reduced
bomb load but most had glazed nozes and were unarmed
The aircraft could only lift so much weight and there's no
such thing as a free lunch
Keith
ArtKramr
>Date: 4/26/00 12:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8e647v$5li$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>
>Tony Whitaker <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:8e57so$reg$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>> "Can I ask what you mean by "might have worked"?"
>>
>> I meant that two Mosquitos replacing each Lancaster, or (5) replacing
>(3) -
>> whatever DeHavilland's statistics supported -
Isn't anyone suspicious that De Havilland's startistics might be self serving
and not very objective considering what they stood to gain if they could pull
it off? Taking those statistics at face value is like shipping lettuce by
rabbit. And of course Bomber Harris didn't buy the con. Nobody did except a
couple of guys on this NG. (grin)
g_al...@hotmail.com
"Keith Willshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> Tony Whitaker <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:8e57so$reg$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> > "Can I ask what you mean by "might have worked"?"
> >
> > I meant that two Mosquitos replacing each Lancaster, or (5)
replacing
> (3) -
to
> > accomplish the same level of destruction with fewer losses because
at
> night,
>
> Actually not . The mosquito could not lift the 8000 lb and heavier
weapons
> for one thing.
No, they couldn't. But then, the B.1 and B.III Marks of Lancaster
couldn't carry them either. The B.II and B.X had the longer bomb bays
and more power. Say, if the Halifax had been taken out of production,
that means there'd be more Bristol Hercules available, so more Lancaster
B.IIs could be built if so wished. An air-cooled engine is more damage
tolerant than a water-cooled one.
> Lets see a Mosquito sink the Tirpitz or bust a U-Boat pen with Tallboy
While the U-boat pen isn't on, dropping a cookie alongside the Tirpitz
would do plenty of damage. The X-craft side cargos were two tons each,
IIRR.
>
> > threatened by lower performance night fighters, the Mosquito's
performance
> > advantage relative to the Lancs might have been enough to
significantly
> > reduce losses. They were also harder to detect with radar, right?
> >
> >
>
> As to radar note that the Germans had no problem seeing Mosquito's
>
> Wood may be transparent to some degree but the engines , bombs
> Undercarriage etc is not.
>
> Note further that the production facilities for building Lancasters
> where quite different than those used for building Mosquitos
No argument there. It seems likely that the Mossie was running up
against material limits in its production. I think it likely that if
mass production had been undertaken as a replacment for the Halifax,
say, redesign of either the wing, fuselage, or both in metal would have
been necessary. Time-consuming.
>
> There is a tendency to believe in miracle cures and deride the
> planners of the day as duffers but those guiding the efforts
> of the war industries in Britain achieved miracles of production and
> had the highest incentive. They were fighting for their lives
> and freedom.
>
> Keith
No one in this discussion (so far at least) has shown any sign of
believing in miracle cures or instant changes in direction, Keith.
We're playing 20-20 hindsight what if, while freely acknowledging the
practical difficulties. Hell, with different supercharging on the
engines,a stripped down A-26 might have served nicely, but that was too
late as it was.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Keith Willshaw wrote in message
<8e64fr$qrb$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>...
>
>P. Wezeman <pwez...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.A41.4.21.000426...@black.weeg.uiowa.edu...
>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 g_al...@hotmail.com wrote, on the subject of using
>
>> have performance equal or superior to the interceptors. Not to
>> minimize the difficulty of training pilots in both bombing and air
>> to air, but it could be really intimidating to be surrounded by
>> perhaps 1,000 enemy planes that could chase you down as a heavy
>> bomber simply could not.
>
>Note that bomber versions of the Mosuito did not have the
>4x20 mm cannon armananent of the fighter variants
>
>some FB versions retained the 4x303 guns at the cost of reduced
>bomb load but most had glazed nozes and were unarmed
The FB VI kept the 4x303 and 4x20mm cannon armament and
could carry 2 500 lb bombs internally. But the versions classified
as bombers were unarmed, so most of the 1,000 planes in this
all Mosquito attack would not represent a threat to the interceptors.
>The aircraft could only lift so much weight and there's no
>such thing as a free lunch
Agreed, the Mosquito was a nice plane but not the first choice
to use in a dogfight with Bf109s and Fw190s.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Geoffrey Sinclair
C.C. Jordan wrote in message <39062049...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
I agree with your point, about local superiority, given the number of
reports I have seen where most of a particular B17 or B24
squadron did not come back because of precisely this sort
of interception. I was trying to make the point that it is pointless to
set up a what if where one side changes things but the other does
not. The other point I tried to make was you cannot produce
large scale militaries on demand. They take time to form and
this gives the other side time to react. The high altitude performance
of the FW190A was well known and was being rectified, the B
C and D models, with varying degrees of success and urgency.
We could spend a long time speculating how large scale daylight mosquito
raids could have been organised, you could mix in fighter bombers
with the pure bombers or have smaller sub formations so they can react
to interception and travel at higher speed. Since it was never tried we
will never know.
I would have expected the Mosquitos to bomb on markers rather
than by eye.
> Unlike the
>American heavy bombers, the Mossie would exact no toll from the Luftwaffe.
>Whereas the American heavies are estimated to have destroyed up to 6,700
>Germans fighters, the Mossies could do nothing more than wave their
>nappy at the attacking aircraft. Besides, what does another 6,000+ German
>fighters and pilots do to the balance of airpower during the course of the
air
>war?
Could you give me the source for your figures on the number of
fighters shot down? According to Williamson Murray in
"Luftwaffe" combat related fighter losses for the Luftwaffe
on all fronts total 4705 July 1943 to June 1944 inclusive, if
you double this to account for the last year of the war
you do not leave many kills for everyone else.
The October Schweinfurt raid cost the Luftwaffe 31 fighters
destroyed and a further 12 written off. The escorting USAAF
fighters claimed 13 kills and I believe the bombers claimed
over 180, not surprising given the very nature of the bomber
box meant there was inevitably overclaiming.
My view of the bomber's defensive armament is it saved many
bombers by deterring close attack but it was not a major destroyer
of German fighters.
>The problem with the majority of proposals specifying the Mosquito is a
lack
>of "real world" understanding of the serious complications involved. These
>folks also tend to ignore the fact that true high performance Mossies
>(bombers) did not enter service until rather late in the conflict. The 380
mph,
>2,000 lb bomb load B.Mk.IV was not going to make the grade.
The B XVI is the main model that could carry the 4,000 lb bomb, it had a
top speed of of 415 mph at 28,000 feet, range 1,485 miles with 4,000 lb
bomb, only 462 built, entered service in March 1944.
>You are correct of course, if the Luftwaffe suspected a switch to
high-speed
>light bombers, they would have placed more emphasis on speed and less
>on firepower. There many good reasons for rejecting the high-speed light
>bomber concept.
I would not go as far as that, after all the start of this thread
was people making the case against the heavy bombers
and other people have questioned the value of bombing
Germany at all, so it seems all bomber types have reasons
for not being used. The Mosquito squadrons used
appropriate tactics and did quite well. What is the correct
mix of aircraft depends on so many factors, defences,
target type, location etc. One size does not fit all. Then
there is the classification, if you are targetting Berlin then
the Mosquito is delivering about the same bomb load
as a B17 and half that of a Lancaster, so it is a "heavy",
if you are bombing France then the Mosquito delivers
maybe 1/3 to 1/4 the load of the 4 engine types, so it is
maybe a "medium". Let the classification wars begin.
The speed bomber works fine if it is used appropriately
and remains close to the fastest aircraft in the sky, and
becomes instantly obsolete when it is not, or at least
nowhere near as useful.
I want a bomber that can bomb accurately with powerful enough
bombs to destroy the target. I expect to have to invest in escorts,
spoof raids, ECM etc, to enable them to do the job. If I did not
make this investment I would expect to take heavy losses.
Whether my ideal bomber is even possible or classified as light,
medium, heavy or super heavy is irrelevant, since I know I will
have to trade off speed, range, ceiling and bomb load and I
will have a range of targets, needing different methods to attack.
I would normally expect the bombers to carry armament to
deter would be attackers but not to shoot many of them down.
Guns on my bombers are fine, escorting fighters are preferred,
regardless of the bomber.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Geoffrey Sinclair
ArtKramr wrote in message <20000426031916...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Re: Weight of B-17 BMG Ammo
>>From: "Keith Willshaw" keith_w...@compuserve.com
>>Date: 4/26/00 12:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <8e647v$5li$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>
>
>>news:8e57so$reg$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>>> "Can I ask what you mean by "might have worked"?"
>>>
>>> I meant that two Mosquitos replacing each Lancaster, or (5) replacing
>
>>(3) -
>>> whatever DeHavilland's statistics supported -
>
serving
>and not very objective considering what they stood to gain if they could
pull
>it off? Taking those statistics at face value is like shipping lettuce by
>rabbit. And of course Bomber Harris didn't buy the con. Nobody did except
a
>couple of guys on this NG. (grin)
I admit made an incorrect citation, the economies of the
Mosquito bomber paper was put together not by
DeHavilands but by the staff of Air Marshall Freeman,
who was the in house champion of the type, the
Mosquito initially gained the nickname of
"Freeman's Folly".
Harris actually did buy it to an extent, after March 1944
only the Mosquitos bombed Berlin in numbers, the Bomber
Command main force went elsewhere. The loss figures
for the Berlin raids showed that unless you wanted to
deliver an 8 or 12,000 lb bomb it was better to use a
Mosquito.
If you gave the average RAF crew a choice of type to
bomb Berlin with I suspect they would choose the
Mosquito as well.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Geoffrey Sinclair
Tony Whitaker wrote in message <8e5j66$gsn$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>...
>"The 4,000-pounders - called 'Blockbusters' or 'Cookies' - were simply
>thin-skinned cylinders packed with explosive. They had no penetrating power
>and were not very accurate but they produced a tremendous blast effect."
>I've also seen pictures of these bombs. I know it's dangerous to base
>conclusions on "common sense", but they sure don't look to me like they'd
be
>very accurate. Surely these things just went tumbling wildly to Earth when
>released.
That is what I am trying to find out, if they had very poor
ballistics then much of the effort to accurately mark a
target become moot. I therefore presume the precision
strikes, like those on the French Marshalling yards were
limited to 2,000 lb bombs or less.
Geoffrey Sinclair
P. Wezeman
>
> P. Wezeman <pwez...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.A41.4.21.000426...@black.weeg.uiowa.edu...
> > On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 g_al...@hotmail.com wrote, on the subject of using
>
> >
> > Modern thinking would be that each attacking aircraft should
> > have at least some air-to-air capability. Even though they are not
> > the equal of a dedicated fighter, the sheer numbers of the attacking
> > planes make them dangerous. In modern exercises F-15's have been
> > shot down when attempting to intercept Jaguars; they didn't realize
> > that there were three pairs of Jaguars instead of the usual two.
> > As soon as the Mosquitos had released their bombs, they would
> > have performance equal or superior to the interceptors. Not to
> > minimize the difficulty of training pilots in both bombing and air
> > to air, but it could be really intimidating to be surrounded by
> > perhaps 1,000 enemy planes that could chase you down as a heavy
> > bomber simply could not.
>
> Note that bomber versions of the Mosuito did not have the
> 4x20 mm cannon armananent of the fighter variants
>
> some FB versions retained the 4x303 guns at the cost of reduced
> bomb load but most had glazed nozes and were unarmed
>
> The aircraft could only lift so much weight and there's no
> such thing as a free lunch
This is of course correct, but it is a question of whether
the trade-off is worth while. For a Mosquito with 4,000 lb bomb
capacity, to carry say two Browning .50 MGs with 200 rounds per
gun would reduce the bomb load by about 20 percent. This may or
may not make sense to do this depending on the number and cause
of losses.
If, when making large-scale daylight raids over Germany, most
of the losses were from flak and very few from enemy fighters, then
carrying more bombs instead of guns would result in fewer planes
exposed to flak. On the other hand, if fighters were causing a
great deal of losses, then it would make sense to arm the bombers,
as was done with the B-17's and B-24's. Alternatively, some fraction
of the Mosquitos could be fighter variants.
ArtKramr
>Date: 4/26/00 1:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3906...@pink.one.net.au>
and B-25's. @,000 pound binbs nmad eni sense afggaisnst marshalling yards, what
was need was loads of 250 and 500 poind bombs to tear up miles of tracks, wreck
roundhouses, detonate locomotives and take out repair facilites. Loads of
smaller bombs did the job much better than a few big ones.
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <3906...@pink.one.net.au>
>
>
g_al...@hotmail.com
artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Weight of B-17 BMG Ammo
> >Date: 4/25/00 8:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <8e5o9n$8lehc$1...@fu-berlin.de>
> >
> >: The USAAF did use Gunships, B-17's with more weapons to
>
> >In theory, perhaps, but in practice even a Me 262 could have a hard
time
> >to catch a late-model PR Mosquito or Spitfire. (The same was true, as
the
>
> Total and absolute bullshit! Have you ever tangled assholes with an
ME-262? No?
> Well I have and you are talking pure crap.
>
> 344th Bomb Group, 9th Air Force
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Art, you're experience with the Me-262 was while flying in a large
formation of B-26s at 10-15,000 feet and 180IAS or so, which had been
tracked almost from the moment it took off, and couldn't make any
radical course changes. That's a very different situation from a lone
PR Mosquito or Spit cruising at much higher speeds and altitudes, free
to alter course radically for evasive routing. The faster the target,
the more limited the allowable intercept vectors that will work, and
Me-262s didn't have the benefit of collision-course intercept gear
either; they had to make pursuit curves. In addition, the service
ceiling of the Me-262 is only 37,600 feet, while any of the high
altitude PR birds could go up to 40 or more (the Spit PR.XI could go up
to 44,000). Add in the effect of the 262's limited endurance and range,
and it just isn't all that easy for them to catch the PR birds. It
certainly happened, but it's by no means as easy for them as hitting
slower and lower mediums and heavies was.
Even if they do catch them, shooting them down isn't all that easy if
the PR a/c see them coming. They can all easily turn inside the Me-262,
especially at those altitudes, and the 262's speed advantage isn't all
that high up there. Contrails are a dead giveaway, so whether an a/c is
spotted depends largely on the spotter's visibility to the rear. The
Spit's in better shape than the Mossie in this area. Even if the 262
does get up there, unless the PR a/c is flying in the cons the 262 may
not even spot them; it's very dark up that high, and there's little
visual contrast or shadows. The PR birds are painted to blend in, and
they were virtually invisible even at very close range. If night
fighter 262s with radar were used, that decreases the 262's speed
advantage even more, to just about nothing.
Remember that Israeli PR Mosquitos flew day recce missions all over the
middle east in the 1950s without being intercepted (the wooden
construction did help with the RCS) and they were facing a/c that had
equal or far better performance than the Me-262 (Vampires, Meteors,
MiG-15/17).
g_al...@hotmail.com
<Pine.A41.4.21.000426...@black.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
My suggestion was to use a few bomber leaders per formation with the
glazed nose, and then have the rest of the formation be single seaters,
replacing the weight of the glazed nose, bomb/nav and bombsight with
some fixed guns. I don't agree with Peter that the Mossies should go
around hunting fighters after bombing; that's "not on." But having some
guns that would make the interceptors think twice about head-on passes,
and give the bombers some defense from rear attacks if the escort gets
lost (by allowing other formation a/c to come to the aid of an attacked
a/c) makes sense to me. That's one of the main reasons that package
guns were fitted to the B-25/B-26. Two fifties seems about right,
weightwise. If the fighter threat becomes minimal, then the guns can be
removed, just as many of the package guns on mediums were.
g_al...@hotmail.com
artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Weight of B-17 BMG Ammo
> >Date: 4/26/00 1:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <3906...@pink.one.net.au>
> >
> >
> 344th Bomb Group, 9th Air Force
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
What Art said. Mossies attacking rail yards would typically carry 6-500
lb. bombs. B-25s/B-26s would carry 6/8 500 lbers, or more
(10-12) 250-300 lbers; B-17s might carry 12 500 lbers, or 16 250-300
lbers. The ultimate railyard bombers were D model BUFFs, carrying 108
Mk.82 500-lbers (or 84 and 24 M117 750lbers). B-1s are almost as good
84 Mk. 82s internally, and could but won't carry lots more externally.
g_al...@hotmail.com
"Geoffrey Sinclair" <grsin...@one.net.au> wrote:
>
> Tony Whitaker wrote in message
<8e5j66$gsn$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >"The 4,000-pounders - called 'Blockbusters' or 'Cookies' - were
simply
> >thin-skinned cylinders packed with explosive. They had no penetrating
power
> >and were not very accurate but they produced a tremendous blast
effect."
> >I've also seen pictures of these bombs. I know it's dangerous to base
> >conclusions on "common sense", but they sure don't look to me like
they'd
> be
> >very accurate. Surely these things just went tumbling wildly to Earth
when
> >released.
>
> That is what I am trying to find out, if they had very poor
> ballistics then much of the effort to accurately mark a
> target become moot. I therefore presume the precision
> strikes, like those on the French Marshalling yards were
> limited to 2,000 lb bombs or less.
>
> Geoffrey Sinclair
I don't know about "tumbling wildly to earth," but clearly the 4,000 lb.
cookies weren't models of minimum dispersion (the 8 and 12,000 lb.
cookies bolted two or three 4,000 lbers together end to end, sometimes
adding an aerdynamic tail as a nod in the direction of accuracy). As to
accurate marking of targets, every little bit helps. Sometimes when
everything worked right, Bomber Command attained CEPs equivalent to the
USAAF average daytime CEPs. But, since the latter was only 3,300 feet,
it's still not something to get all excited about. US Daytime radar
bombing in '44-'45 achieved CEPs of two miles or so, and by early 1944
the Brits were doing a bit worse at night. As more targets came in
range of Oboe marking as the armies advanced in Europe, they usually did
better.
ArtKramr
>Date: 4/26/00 12:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8e7fbu$nbe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article
><Pine.A41.4.21.000426...@black.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
The package guns on the B-26's were never removed. Never.
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <8e7ef9$m9d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>> >Date: 4/25/00 8:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <8e5o9n$8lehc$1...@fu-berlin.de>
>> >
>> >: The USAAF did use Gunships, B-17's with more weapons to
>>
>> >In theory, perhaps, but in practice even a Me 262 could have a hard
>time
>> >to catch a late-model PR Mosquito or Spitfire. (The same was true, as
>the
>>
>> Total and absolute bullshit! Have you ever tangled assholes with an
>ME-262? No?
>> Well I have and you are talking pure crap.
>>
>> 344th Bomb Group, 9th Air Force
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>
262 zoomed away in heartbeat.
John L.
night fighter and the night bomber. It is simply not worth
considering the concept of a mosquito bomber trying to
enguage a night fighter in a dogfight over the enemy base.
I fully realize the mosquito has two pairs of eyes to the
one pair in the Me109 or FW190. Your mosquito bomber will
not have radar. Your mosquito bomber will not have more
than a couple of small caliber MG.
This concept would deprive a large number of villages
of the resident idiot. I have seen the Brits fly, they
may be mad, but they are not stupid.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Tony Whitaker
Yes, but in the context of this discussion, interjecting performance
characteristics of Photo-recon Mosquito's is irrelevant. We were talking
about the possibility of using Mosquitos to replace B-17s. A Mosquito with a
4,000 lb bomb load would not fly at 400 mph in level flight and it would not
fly at 40,000 ft. This always happens in these discussions. Do you guys
really not understand that an aircraft is incapable of achieving its maximum
performance characteristics while carrying its maximum bomb load?
P. Wezeman
> In article
> <Pine.A41.4.21.000426...@black.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
> "P. Wezeman" <pwez...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >
> > >
> My suggestion was to use a few bomber leaders per formation with the
> glazed nose, and then have the rest of the formation be single seaters,
> replacing the weight of the glazed nose, bomb/nav and bombsight with
> some fixed guns. I don't agree with Peter that the Mossies should go
> around hunting fighters after bombing; that's "not on." But having some
> guns that would make the interceptors think twice about head-on passes,
> and give the bombers some defense from rear attacks if the escort gets
> lost (by allowing other formation a/c to come to the aid of an attacked
> a/c) makes sense to me. That's one of the main reasons that package
> guns were fitted to the B-25/B-26. Two fifties seems about right,
> weightwise. If the fighter threat becomes minimal, then the guns can be
> removed, just as many of the package guns on mediums were.
The Mosquitos would not necessarily go after fighters as a
standard part of their mission after bombing, but the possibility
should exist. This would make the interceptor pilots think twice
about using up the last of their ammo and fuel reserve in attacks.
Note that in attacking a formation of Mosquitos with a head-on pass
it would probably not be possible for a Me-109 or Fw-190 to
re-position themselves for a second attack. They simply couldn't
catch up with the formation.
Tony Whitaker
answer, from the B24D armament manual:
30.25 Lbs per 100 rounds using metalic links"
Thanks, John. No one has yet given me the info so certainly or with the
weight of the links. I don't suppose you have the same numbers for the
Lanc's .303 cal ammo?
Tony Whitaker
962 Lbs."
I was talking about the difference between the weight of (13) .50 cal guns
and (8) .303 cal guns. I have the following numbers from "Great Aircraft of
WWII" by Alfred Price and Mike Spick:
Browning MG .303 calibre = 22 lb
Browning MG .50 calibre = 64 lb
(13*64) - (8*22) = 832 - 176 = 656 lbs
I was amazed how light the Lanc's armament was. Just think - I could lift
the total weight of guns carried on a Lancaster in WWII. A lousy 176 lbs.
C.C. Jordan
>: The USAAF did use Gunships, B-17's with more weapons to
>: protect the lead bombers.
>
>It is correct that the USAAF built and tested a few heavily-armed gunship
>versions of the B-17 (as the B-40) and the B-24 (as the B-41). But after
>evaluation these had to be considered a failure, and a burden to the
>formation because they were slower than a standard B-17 after this had
>dropped its bombs. So they were discontinued after only a handful had been
>built. The only good that came of it was the nose turret that was
>installed on the B-17G.
Hi Emmanuel,
Allow me to disclose a generally unknown bit of B-17 history.
The nose (chin) turret actually appeared on a late block of Douglas
built B-17Fs. 59 B-17F-75-DL bombers were built with the new
Bendix chin turret. Some records incorrectly classify these as
B-17G-5-DL. One was transferred to the U.S. Navy. The serial
numbers are 42-3504 through 42-3562. It was 42-3521 that was
handed over to the Navy. The USAAF serial number allocation
was equally confusing. Some had 6 numbers, others 7 and they
were mingled within the timeline too.
There was much confusion due to the many different contracts issued.
Some Fortresses thought to be B-17Fs were actually B-17Es because they
manufactured against the model E contract. Likewise, some Gs are actually
model Fs for the same reason. At first, no contracts were issued for the
B-17G. These bombers were to be built against contracts issued for the
F model, incorporating change orders rather than a new designation.
Eventually the much reworked bomber was redesignated as the model G.
However, not all of them fell under the change. Therefore, we have some
model F bombers with the Bendix chin turret. I would not want the contract
manager on that program......
My regards,
C.C. Jordan
http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/Widewing.html - Widewing Publications
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com - The Planes and Pilots of WWII Internet Magazine
http://www.cradleofaviation.org - The Cradle of Aviation Museum
lrrcp
intercepting Bombers at night do to the speed differance.
Though they did kill quite a few Mossies, 42 in 70 sorties.
10/NJG 11 was the unit that did this, they also shot down 5
high-altitude Recon aircraft by day.
so I do not belive the Night fighter version had that much
trouble catching high recon aircraft.
Unfortenly the types of recon aircraft shot down and
altitude were not mentioned.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Tony Whitaker
fuel load for the Lanc (model unstated) of 2,154 gal. These are presumably
Imperial gallons, so to compare with the B-17 we need to multiply by 1.2, or
2,585 U.S. Gallons. Assuming 6 lb./gal., that's 15,509 lb. of fuel."
I have from "Flying Fortress" by Edward Jablonski:
"Three main tanks in each wing (inboard sections) and nine in the outboard
sections made a possible fuel overload of 2780 gallons and with the addition
of bomb-bay tanks, 3600 gallons."
lrrcp
> > The Night versions of the 262 had major problems
> > intercepting Bombers at night do to the speed
> differance.
> > Though they did kill quite a few Mossies, 42 in 70
> sorties.
> > 10/NJG 11 was the unit that did this, they also shot
> down 5
> > high-altitude Recon aircraft by day.
> > so I do not belive the Night fighter version had
> that much
> > trouble catching high recon aircraft.
> > Unfortenly the types of recon aircraft shot down and
> > altitude were not mentioned.
> easily catch
> Mossie _bombers_ at night, and I've got no argument
> with that.
Odds are that the mossies were a mixture of bombers and
night intruder fighter versions.
> using the same stats it seems that catching fast high
> altitude PR a/c
> during the day was considerably more difficult, which
> was exactly the
> point that Emmanuel and I were making, so where's the
> argument?
the fact this Night fighter groupe did kill 5 high altitude
recon planes as a indecator they had the ablity to locate
and direct fighters to the recon planes for intercept.
the factor of the nite fightes having radar increased the
odds of intercept also.
I posted this vs anouther person who said it would be hard
or impossible for 262's to intercept recon A/C and even
harder for NF 262's.
this shows that NF 262's were able to intercept these type
of A/C and destroy them.
Tony Whitaker
replacing heavies for daytime use are ambivalent at best."
Sorry. I'm used to soc.history.war.world-war-ii where the Mosquito cultists
regularly use max. performance data to declare the Mosquito invulnerable to
interception.
You know, this group is every bit as good, if not better, than the moderated
SHWWWII group. In fact, there are so many responses I'm having trouble
finding time to read them all. And most of them contain lots of good data.
g_al...@hotmail.com
"Tony Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "...while any of the high altitude PR birds could go up to 40 or
more..."
>
> Yes, but in the context of this discussion, interjecting performance
> characteristics of Photo-recon Mosquito's is irrelevant.
But it's not irrelelvant in the context of Art's comments re Emmanuel's
comment on PR birds and jets, which is what I was responding to. As my
numerous caveats should have shown, my feelings about Mossies replacing
heavies for daytime use are ambivalent at best.
>We were
>talking
> about the possibility of using Mosquitos to replace B-17s.
Actually, that was only one of the subjects we were talking about. We
were also talking about Mossies replacing the Halifax/Lancaster, Mossies
vs. jets, formations, armament, production, and a few others I've
probably forgotten. Subject drift is pretty common on an unmoderated
NG.
>A Mosquito
>with a
> 4,000 lb bomb load would not fly at 400 mph in level flight and it
would not
> fly at 40,000 ft. This always happens in these discussions. Do you
guys
> really not understand that an aircraft is incapable of achieving its
maximum
> performance characteristics while carrying its maximum bomb load?
Of course we understand these things, Tony, and none of us are comparing
the performance of PR a/c with normal bomber a/c. If you remember, I
was the one who quoted the Mossie B Mk.IV's cruise speed as 265TAS @
25kft, so clearly I'm aware of the difference (as is Emmanuel) between
that and max. speed (385TAS @22kft, although that may be for the regular
rather than bulged bomb bay. PR a/c with a bulge for a fuel tank lost
6 mph). I have flown, Tony. GA a/c, not military, but the basic
physics doesn't change.
g_al...@hotmail.com
lrrcp <lrrcpN...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> The Night versions of the 262 had major problems
> intercepting Bombers at night do to the speed differance.
> Though they did kill quite a few Mossies, 42 in 70 sorties.
> 10/NJG 11 was the unit that did this, they also shot down 5
> high-altitude Recon aircraft by day.
> so I do not belive the Night fighter version had that much
> trouble catching high recon aircraft.
> Unfortenly the types of recon aircraft shot down and
> altitude were not mentioned.
Well now, your stats indicate that the NF Me-262 could easily catch
Mossie _bombers_ at night, and I've got no argument with that. OTOH,
using the same stats it seems that catching fast high altitude PR a/c
during the day was considerably more difficult, which was exactly the
point that Emmanuel and I were making, so where's the argument?
Guy
g_al...@hotmail.com
artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Weight of B-17 BMG Ammo
> >Date: 4/26/00 12:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <8e7ef9$m9d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >>
Certainly. And the 262 was at what altitude to start with, 10-15,000
feet? And the P-51 was at what altitude when he dove, 20-25,000 feet?
But what does this have to do with a PR a/c operating at high speed near
or above the service ceiling of the 262? Not much, Art. The Me-262
hits its max. level speed at 19,700 feet, 540 mph. It decreases fairly
slowly for another 7-8,000 feet, decreasing to 532mph @ about 27,000
feet, according to one source. Unfortunately, I don't have data for
max. level speeds above that height (anyone got data?), so I can't say
how quickly it drops off above that altitude, but given the wing loading
and the service ceiling (37,600) I imagine the curve gets a lot worse
very quickly.
The Mosquito PR.XVI is rated at 410 @28,000, and is rated for a service
ceiling of 40,000 (one account has an NF.XV, which is the armed night
fighter version with the same wings, engines, and pressure cabin,
getting to 43,000 without much difficulty). Since the 262 is listed
with a service ceiling of 37,600 feet, it's clear that it has no
sustained turn capability whatsoever at 40kft (assuming it could get
there when light on fuel), and probably won't be able to pull any g at
such altitudes. It might be able to zoom and make an attack, but that's
iffy with such a small performance margin. This ain't no F-104
attacking a U-2 (Hi, Walt:-) ).
g_al...@hotmail.com
artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Weight of B-17 BMG Ammo
> >From: g_al...@hotmail.com
> >Message-id: <8e7fbu$nbe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
> >In article
> ><Pine.A41.4.21.000426...@black.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
>
> > "P. Wezeman" <pwez...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >>
>
> >That's one of the main reasons that package
> >guns were fitted to the B-25/B-26. Two fifties seems about right,
> >weightwise. If the fighter threat becomes minimal, then the guns can
be
> >removed, just as many of the package guns on mediums were.
>
>
> 344th Bomb Group, 9th Air Force
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Art, if you want to change your statement to "the package guns on my
squadron's/Group's/the ETO's B-26s were never removed. Never."
I'll be happy to go along. However, like the ventral gun fit and
the fixed forward-firing gun in the lower right section of the nose
compartment, neither of which you were aware of because you had no
personal experience of them, there are more things in heaven and earth,
Art, than are dreamt of in your philosophy:-)
It was apparently quite common in the MTO to remove some or all of the
package guns, as the German fighter threat decreased to almost nothing
late in the war. Sometimes only the guns were removed, sometimes the
fairings also, to save weight and decrease drag. Your groupmate Jack
Havener quotes some MTO crews who say they did just that, and includes
photos showing their a/c with the guns and/or fairings removed, so if
you want to argue it further, I suggest you take it up with him:-)
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <8e82io$c31$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <20000426160019.06884.00001626@ng-fg1
> >especially at those altitudes, and the 262's speed advantage isn't
>all
>> >that high up there. Contrails are a dead giveaway, so whether an a/c
>is
>> >spotted depends largely on the spotter's visibility to the rear. The
>> >Spit's in better shape than the Mossie in this area. Even if the 262
>> >does get up there, unless the PR a/c is flying in the cons the 262
>may
>> >not even spot them; it's very dark up that high, and there's little
>> >visual contrast or shadows. The PR birds are painted to blend in,
>and
>> >they were virtually invisible even at very close range. If night
>> >fighter 262s with radar were used, that decreases the 262's speed
>> >advantage even more, to just about nothing.
>> >
>> >Remember that Israeli PR Mosquitos flew day recce missions all over
>the
>> >middle east in the 1950s without being intercepted (the wooden
>> >construction did help with the RCS) and they were facing a/c that had
>> >equal or far better performance than the Me-262 (Vampires, Meteors,
>> >MiG-15/17).
>> >
>> >Guy
>> >
>> >
>> I saw P-51's come after an ME 262 with a 10,000 foot diving advantage
>and the
>> 262 zoomed away in heartbeat.
>>
>> F/O Arthur Kramer
>> 344th Bomb Group, 9th Air Force
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>
>Certainly. And the 262 was at what altitude to start with, 10-15,000
>feet? And the P-51 was at what altitude when he dove, 20-25,000 feet?
>
>But what does this have to do with a PR a/c operating at high speed near
>or above the service ceiling of the 262? Not much, Art. The Me-262
>hits its max. level speed at 19,700 feet, 540 mph. It decreases fairly
>slowly for another 7-8,000 feet, decreasing to 532mph @ about 27,000
>feet, according to one source. Unfortunately, I don't have data for
>max. level speeds above that height (anyone got data?), so I can't say
>how quickly it drops off above that altitude, but given the wing loading
>and the service ceiling (37,600) I imagine the curve gets a lot worse
>very quickly.
>
>The Mosquito PR.XVI is rated at 410 @28,000, and is rated for a service
>ceiling of 40,000 (one account has an NF.XV, which is the armed night
>fighter version with the same wings, engines, and pressure cabin,
>getting to 43,000 without much difficulty). Since the 262 is listed
>with a service ceiling of 37,600 feet, it's clear that it has no
>sustained turn capability whatsoever at 40kft (assuming it could get
>there when light on fuel), and probably won't be able to pull any g at
>such altitudes. It might be able to zoom and make an attack, but that's
>iffy with such a small performance margin. This ain't no F-104
>attacking a U-2 (Hi, Walt:-) ).
>
>Guy
>
>
Nonsense. if you are trying to prove that the Spits and the P-51 could
outperform a 262, you are living in a statisticle dream world of unreality. And
if you are right, then the jet engine would have been dead from the get go.
But the P-51 and Spits are what are dead while the descendants of the 262 now
dominate the air world. Wake up and smell the present.
ArtKramr
>Date: 4/26/00 5:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8e809p$fem$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>
bomb load. In the B-26 it was either tanks or bombs, not both. Those tanks
were great for ferry flights over long distances.
ArtKramr
>Date: 4/26/00 5:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8e80v7$aai$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Forget it. They will never understand that you can't push a plane near redline
with max load and running in auto rich and still get max range as though you
were at economy cruise in auto lean. It is beyond their understanding. I gave
up on that point along time ago, They just can't read and comprehend
performance specs.
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <8e83mm$dad$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <20000426155546...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
>> The package guns on the B-26's were never removed. Never.
>>
The package guns on Willie The Wolf were never removed. And your representing
what happened in the MTO as being universal is false being the exception more
than the rule. Willie had its package guns in place until the day he died. So
don't tell me that all mediums had their package guns removed.. And next time
you are using a minor theatre of operations as an example, say so instead off
making everyone falsely think that it was universal. Which it sure as hell
wasn't.
g_al...@hotmail.com
artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Weight of B-17 BMG Ammo
> >From: g_al...@hotmail.com
> >> 344th Bomb Group, 9th Air Force
> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> >
Art, where do you see any evidence that I was trying to prove that Spits
and P-51s could outperform the Me-262? I've said that, in some cases,
they (actually, PR Spits and Mossies, but the P-51 qualifies as
well) have higher ceilings, and that's verifiable fact. Hell. many
of the late-war piston a/c could go higher than early jets, because
of low wingloadings. I've also said that any of these prop a/c can
outturn the 262, especially at its service ceiling, and again, that's
verifiable fact and basic aerodynamics. I have stated that the Me-262's
performance advantage wasn't significant enough to allow it to routinely
intercept single high altitude high speed piston PR a/c operated by the
allies, and that's all I've stated. Period. If you want the next
generation example of the same phenomenon, there's the Canberra
PR a/c, virtually uninterceptable by any first (straight wing) or second
generation (swept-wing) jet fighter, even though they were faster than
it was. Only when the supersonic fighters showed up did it have to
worry, and the designers just kept putting bigger wings and engines on
them to compensate.
And
> if you are right, then the jet engine would have been dead from the
get go.
> But the P-51 and Spits are what are dead while the descendants of the
262 now
> dominate the air world. Wake up and smell the present.
Art, your argument has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking
about, so why do you even bring it up? Please point out where you find
even the _tiniest_ hint in what I've written that I consider piston
engines superior to jets as far as ultimate speed and altitude
capability go.
g_al...@hotmail.com
"Tony Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I have from "Flying Fortress" by Edward Jablonski:
> "Three main tanks in each wing (inboard sections) and nine in the
outboard
> sections made a possible fuel overload of 2780 gallons and with the
addition
> of bomb-bay tanks, 3600 gallons."
>
>
Okay, I've got that one too. Now the question is, is the discrepancy
between Jablonski's (2,780 gal.) and Caidin's (2,810 gal.) numbers due
to different models, a typo, or is Caidin giving total fuel and
Jablonski giving total _usable_ fuel (i.e., not including fuel trapped
in lines etc.)? That's the kind of stuff that can make these
comparisons maddening. in any case, it appears that the Lanc carries
less fuel, so any range advantage it has isn't based on that. Nr, given
the ceilings, would I expect it to have an advantage in aspect ratio or
wing-loading.
g_al...@hotmail.com
lrrcp <lrrcpN...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > lrrcp <lrrcpN...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > The Night versions of the 262 had major problems
> > > intercepting Bombers at night do to the speed
> > differance.
> > > Though they did kill quite a few Mossies, 42 in 70
> > sorties.
> > > 10/NJG 11 was the unit that did this, they also shot
> > down 5
> > > high-altitude Recon aircraft by day.
> > > so I do not belive the Night fighter version had
> > that much
> > > trouble catching high recon aircraft.
> > > Unfortenly the types of recon aircraft shot down and
> > > altitude were not mentioned.
> > Well now, your stats indicate that the NF Me-262 could
> > easily catch
> > Mossie _bombers_ at night, and I've got no argument
> > with that.
> night intruder fighter versions.
Fair enough. Both are armed a/c, and neither have high altitude engines
or extended wings, which the PR a/c do.
>
> > using the same stats it seems that catching fast high
> > altitude PR a/c
> > during the day was considerably more difficult, which
> > was exactly the
> > point that Emmanuel and I were making, so where's the
> > argument?
> the fact this Night fighter groupe did kill 5 high altitude
> recon planes as a indecator they had the ablity to locate
> and direct fighters to the recon planes for intercept.
> the factor of the nite fightes having radar increased the
> odds of intercept also.
> I posted this vs anouther person who said it would be hard
> or impossible for 262's to intercept recon A/C and even
> harder for NF 262's.
> this shows that NF 262's were able to intercept these type
> of A/C and destroy them.
No, you posted it in reply to me (and Emmanuel). Neither of us ever
said it was impossible; we both said it was difficult and a lot of
things had to go right, but it happened. Your stats, raw though they
are, seem to indicate this. For one thing, sometimes recon a/c have to
descend to get below cloud, which makes them easier targets (and they
may then be operating at the same altitudes as those bomber/intruder
Mossies). So, night time, when the Schwalbes can sneak up unseen on
slower and lower Mossies, 47 kills. Daytime, when they're going against
faster, high altitude PR a/c which may see them coming, 5 kills. Of
course, this assumes that they were being used in equal amounts for both
missions, and that may not be the case. Just getting off the airfields
in daytime may have been damned difficult, too, so I don't want to
speculate to far without having more info behind these stats. But the
data is suggestive, without being conclusive.
And sometimes, of course, everything works out perfectly and they can
nail a PR Mossie regardless. Them's the breaks. Hell, sometimes
FW-190As were able to nail PR Mossies, but you sure wouldn't want to put
money on it for any particular mission, now would you? The 262's
certainly got a far better chance than most piston fighters, that's for
sure, but neither Emmanuel or I has ever denied that.
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <8e87db$hce$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>In article <8e809p$fem$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Tony Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> sections made a possible fuel overload of 2780 gallons and with the
>addition
>> of bomb-bay tanks, 3600 gallons."
Of the 3600 gallons 212 gallons were not available for use according to the
Pilots Manual for the B-17 flying Fortress AN 01-20ED-1, A.P. NO.2099cc.
g_al...@hotmail.com
"Tony Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "As my numerous caveats should have shown, my feelings about Mossies
> replacing heavies for daytime use are ambivalent at best."
>
cultists
> regularly use max. performance data to declare the Mosquito
invulnerable to
> interception.
>
> You know, this group is every bit as good, if not better, than the
moderated
> SHWWWII group. In fact, there are so many responses I'm having trouble
> finding time to read them all. And most of them contain lots of good
data.
Well, we've got our share of the clueless here too, but being somewhat
more finely focused, NGs like this one and sci.military.naval do have a
slightly higher S/N ratio than some others. It won't take you long to
figure out who to pay attention to, who to be cautious about, and who to
ignore. Bewtween the ex and current military and the serious buffs,
there's a lot of good info available. Unfortunately, there's also
plenty of loonies.
g_al...@hotmail.com
artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Weight of B-17 BMG Ammo
> >From: g_al...@hotmail.com
> >Message-id: <8e83mm$dad$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
> >In article <20000426155546...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
>
> >> The package guns on the B-26's were never removed. Never.
> >>
>
> The package guns on Willie The Wolf were never removed.
Did I say they were?
>And your
representing
> what happened in the MTO as being universal is false being the
exception more
> than the rule.
Art, when did I represent what happened in the MTO as being universal?
Here's what I wrote, verbatim:
"But having some guns that would make the interceptors think twice about
head-on passes,
and give the bombers some defense from rear attacks if the escort gets
lost (by allowing other formation a/c
to come to the aid of an attacked a/c) makes sense to me. That's one
of the main reasons that package
guns were fitted to the B-25/B-26. Two fifties seems about right,
weightwise. If the fighter threat becomes
minimal, then the guns can be removed, just as many of the package guns
on mediums were."
So, I state that "IF the fighter threat becomes minimal," thus limiting
the application to only those situations, "then the guns CAN be removed"
(i.e. it's not automatic, but varies), "just as MANY of the package guns
on mediums were." Since when does a statement limited by "IF," "CAN,"
and "MANY," imply universal application, Art? On the other hand,
you stated "The package guns on _The B-26s_ were NEVER removed. NEVER."
The use of the word "never" certainly implies universal application in
my book.
Willie had its package guns in place until the day he
died. So
> don't tell me that all mediums had their package guns removed
.. And
next time
> you are using a minor theatre of operations as an example, say so
instead off
> making everyone falsely think that it was universal. Which it sure as
hell
> wasn't.
>
> F/O Arthur Kramer
> 344th Bomb Group, 9th Air Force
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
See above. And you might get some flak from Vets of the MTO about it
being a "Minor" theater of operations, especially as the B-26 loss rate
in the MTO was higher than that in the ETO, as we've previously
discussed. The 3 U.S. B-26 groups in the MTO, plus the single RAF
squadron, 4 SAAF squadrons, and six Group de Bombardement of the French
Air Force is roughly equivalent to Six U.S. Groups, not much less than
the 8 Groups in the ETO. And of course, there's all the other "Medium"
groups in the MTO, flying the B-25 (some of which also removed the
package guns).
Lindsay
While having a lot of respect for yourself and your opinions as well as
the knowledge you kindly share here, I must say something about this
message. While in the view of a USAAF crew the MTO is a minor theatre
compared to the ETO, please don't fail to forget what else happened there.
Sure, by defeating the Axis army in North Africa the war didn't end, as
opposed to defeating the Axis army in Europe you must remember that there
were thousands of men still involved in resisting the Germans. My
grandfather fought in both the MTO and the Pacific and he sure as hell
didn't see either one as a minor theatre.
Without laying blame or raising issues, remember that Britain and her allies
at the time fought in the Med and North Africa from 1940 onwards, before the
Americans became involved. Just ask any Brit, Aussie, Kiwi etc about El
Alamein, or Aussie's about Tobruk, Crete and Palestine. Convoys
crisscrossing between Malta, Gibraltar and Alexandria.......
While a very interesting conversation nonetheless (I am one of those non
flying types you complain about, although I am in the RAAF) in which I have
learnt a fair bit, please don't attempt to trivialise other men's
experiences compared to your own. You all fought to accomplish the same
result.
Linz
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20000426212907...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Weight of B-17 BMG Ammo
> >From: g_al...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 4/26/00 6:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <8e83mm$dad$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
> >In article <20000426155546...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
>
> >> The package guns on the B-26's were never removed. Never.
> >>
>
> The package guns on Willie The Wolf were never removed. And your
representing
> what happened in the MTO as being universal is false being the exception
more
> than the rule. Willie had its package guns in place until the day he died.
So
> don't tell me that all mediums had their package guns removed.. And next
Tony Whitaker
between Jablonski's (2,780 gal.) and Caidin's (2,810 gal.) numbers due to
That's a pretty insignificant descrepancy, isn't it? Only 30 gallons.
"in any case, it appears that the Lanc carries less fuel, so any range
advantage it has isn't based on that."
I have an account of a B-17 mission to Posen Poland carrying a 5,000 lb bomb
load. The round trip was almost 2,000 miles, and the B-17's extended their
range by flying the bulk of the mission at 11,000 ft (across the Baltic,
across Denmark, and then turning in to Poland). What are the wing design
requirements for maximum range compared to the requirements for maximum
altitude. I'd think they would not be competing requirements.
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <8e8jer$u1u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <20000426212907...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
>artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
>> >Subject: Re: Weight of B-17 BMG Ammo
>> >From: g_al...@hotmail.com
>But having some guns that would make the interceptors think twice about
>head-on passes,
> and give the bombers some defense from rear attacks if the escort gets
>lost (by allowing other formation a/c
> to come to the aid of an attacked a/c) makes sense to me. That's one
>of the main reasons that package
> guns were fitted to the B-25/B-26. Two >fifties seems about right,
We had 4 fifties in our package guns. Why do say two seems about right? What
is your standard for what is right. And the package guns were fitted for ground
support work and were almost never used in air to air . It was far to
dangourous to fire the package guns when you were in tight formations. The
chances of shooting down one of your own was far greater than getting and enemy
kill. And in formation you couldn;lt even vary from your position by a hair to
bring the package guns to bear on an attacking enemy. Considering how much we
used them, and their weight with ammo, and the B-26's wing loading, none would
have been better. They were near useless.
g_al...@hotmail.com
artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Weight of B-17 BMG Ammo
> >From: g_al...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 4/26/00 10:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <8e8jer$u1u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
> >In article <20000426212907...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
>
> >artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >> >Subject: Re: Weight of B-17 BMG Ammo
> >> >From: g_al...@hotmail.com
>
> >But having some guns that would make the interceptors think twice
about
> >head-on passes,
> > and give the bombers some defense from rear attacks if the escort
gets
> >lost (by allowing other formation a/c
> > to come to the aid of an attacked a/c) makes sense to me. That's
one
> >of the main reasons that package
> > guns were fitted to the B-25/B-26. Two >fifties seems about right,
>
> We had 4 fifties in our package guns. Why do say two seems about
right?
Art, please remember the context of my remarks. What was being
discussed in the above quote was whether or not Mosquito bombers (which
were hypothetically being used to replace day heavy bombers) should have
some defensive armament, in this case fixed forward firing guns. I said
that I thought that they should, and gave the reasons.
>What
> is your standard for what is right.
The standard being used was replacing the weight of the navigator,
bombsight, and plexiglas nose with a roughly equivalent weight of guns,
and I estimate that about two .50s with an appropriate amount of ammo
"would be about right." I.E., two .50s @ 65 lb. each, plus fittings,
ammo etc., would be useful and about balance the weight removed. It
would be preferable to fit two 20mms, but that would probably be too
heavy. If you want all the conditions that applied, please go back and
read my original post, with all the conditions and caveats I made.
And the package guns were fitted
for ground
> support work and were almost never used in air to air . It was far to
> dangourous to fire the package guns when you were in tight formations.
The
> chances of shooting down one of your own was far greater than getting
and enemy
> kill. And in formation you couldn;lt even vary from your position by a
hair to
> bring the package guns to bear on an attacking enemy. Considering how
much we
> used them, and their weight with ammo, and the B-26's wing loading,
none would
> have been better. They were near useless.
Which is exactly why they were removed from many MTO B-26s and B-25s,
although at least some B-25s apparently just removed two of them. The
other problem was that they often jammed. Originally, however,
the package guns were fitted as a result of early Pacific combat, to
improve defenses from head-on in addition to improving strafing
armament. The crews who first cobbled together their own package guns
(just rivetting two guns on the fuselage, with no fairing), were worried
about head-on fighter attacks. They also flew in much smaller
formations that you did in the ETO, lower, and at higher speeds (small
wing a/c), and almost always without escort.
In my original post I'd already mentioned that, with their speed and
lacking most of the defensive guns of normal bombers, there'd be no
reason for Mosquitos to fly in the typical bomber tight formation,
except during the bomb run itself. That means you aren't so restricted
by other a/c getting in the way, and would have more firing
opportunities. I postulated the nose guns would be used to deter or
degrade head-on attacks from fighters, and to provide some defense if
there were no escorts around, nothing more. Just making sure
intercepting fighters know they don't have a free ride.
g_al...@hotmail.com
"Tony Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "Okay, I've got that one too. Now the question is, is the discrepancy
> between Jablonski's (2,780 gal.) and Caidin's (2,810 gal.) numbers due
to
> different models, a typo, ..."
>
> That's a pretty insignificant descrepancy, isn't it? Only 30 gallons.
The discrepancy itself is minor, Tony. The question is the reason for
the discrepancy, because when you have that information, you have a
better idea how much weight to put on the rest of the information from a
particular source. Some authors don't sweat the details, and routinely
round off/ignore info that they think is trivial, but which may be
important or even vital for what you're trying to find out. It's kind
of like the people who quote max. performance for the Mosquito and
assume that is cruise performance. Unless you know what assumptions are
being made, the conclusions you draw may be completely erroneous.
That's why it's always better to work from as close to the original
source material as possible, so everything is filtered as few times as
possible. Fortunately, we have many people here who possess original
performance material, or who can speak from personal experience of a
particular a/c or piece of equipment. People like C.C. Jordan, Dudley
Henriques, Ed Rasimus, Walt Bjorneby, Art, John Tomany, Bufdrvr, Jim
Baker, and Bob Payette, just to name a few.
>
> "in any case, it appears that the Lanc carries less fuel, so any range
> advantage it has isn't based on that."
>
> I have an account of a B-17 mission to Posen Poland carrying a 5,000
lb bomb
> load. The round trip was almost 2,000 miles, and the B-17's extended
their
> range by flying the bulk of the mission at 11,000 ft (across the
Baltic,
> across Denmark, and then turning in to Poland). What are the wing
design
> requirements for maximum range compared to the requirements for
maximum
> altitude. I'd think they would not be competing requirements.
Generally, they tend to be pretty ccomplementary. Ignoring airfoil
design, the main requirement for max. range is usually
a high aspect ratio, along with choosing the right wing-loading - too
much and the a/c flies along with its nose in the air trying to develop
enough lift, too little and the wing creates too much drag.
For max. altitude, wing loading needs to be low, and high aspect ratio
usually goes along with that. The Stirling's ceiling was crippled by
the relatively low aspect ratio of its wing. There's also a matter of
setting the wing at the right angle of incidence to give the lowest drag
for cruise - this often competes with takeoff or landing distance
requirements. I'm getting perilously close to the limits of my
understanding, so hopefully Walt, Dudley or someone else with lots of
Aero background will jump in here.
Anyway, aspect ratio is determined by span^2/wing area. The only source
I can find with the Lanc's wing area claims it's 1,300 sq. feet, and I
show span as 102 feet, so that gives an aspect ratio of 8.00. The
numbers I have for the B-17 are span 103'9", area 1,420 sq. feet, for an
aspect ratio of 7.69. Whether that's significant or not given all the
other variables, I can't say.
Oh, here's some Lanc data I found on the web:
Maximum speed at normal weight:
271 mph (436 km/h) @ 6,250 ft (1,905 m)
281 mph (452 km/h) @ 11,000 ft (3,350 m)
Maximum weak mixture cruising speed:
227 mph (365 km/h)
Most economical cruising speed:
216 mph (346 km/h) @ 20,000 ft (6,100m)
Maximum permissible diving speed:
360 mph (579 km/h)
Time to climb to 20,000 ft (6,100 m):
41.6 minutes
Rate of climb:
250 ft (76 m) per minute
Service ceiling at maximum weight:
20,000 ft (6,100 m)
Service ceiling at mean weight:
24,500 ft (7,470 m)
Runway length required to take-off and reach 50 ft (15 m) at maximum
weight:
1,550 yards (1,420 m)
Landing distance from 50 ft (15 m) at mean weight:
1,000 yards (915 m)
.
All in all, I'm beginning to wonder if the Lanc's range advantage, if
it actually exists once you remove all the extra armor and armament from
the B-17 and normalize the flight conditions, might be mainly due to
better cruise fuel economy on the part of the Merlin, compared to the
Cyclone. Nothing else strikes me as significant enough to make that much
of a difference, but I don't have fuel cnsumption figures for either.
Maybe we really ought to compare the B-24 with the Lanc, as they're
closer in concept and performance. The B-24 really goes for a high
aspect wing: 110' span, 1,048 sq. ft. area, AR 11.5
Tony Whitaker
it actually exists once you remove all the extra armor and armament from
the B-17 and normalize the flight conditions, might be mainly due to better
cruise fuel economy on the part of the Merlin, compared to the Cyclone."
I've been searching for an authoritative explanation of why the B-17, with a
total weight of 65,000 pounds and carrying more fuel than the Lanc weighing
68,000 pounds, had such a significantly shorter range according to my
source. Not being an aeronautical engineer, my gut feeling was that it must
be a combination of better (more fuel efficient) engines on the Lanc and
data skewed toward the typical mission altitudes at which each aircraft
actually conducted their missions during WWII. So I suspect, as with the
typical bomb loads comparison, that the Lanc and B-17 were much closer in
range performance than the published data suggests.