Lancaster

[Scherf]

Originally posted by Noir
BTW some bomber mozzie could hold the 4000lb "cookie" bomb....I want that to sink cvs LOL

I'd take a stuka myself...

[Angus]

Uhmmm Izzy Kurfurst BarbI, - please explain this:
"mm, the typical Mossie nightbomber (only those had bulged bomb bay to accomodate a single thin walled 4000 lbs bomb, pretty much useless for anything else than bringing down brick structures) sortie was made from something like 30 000 feet. At high speed, during the night, practically blind. Precision? Doh."

Firstly 4000 lbs remain 4000 lbs - it's a choice of bomb. What matters is that it could be hauled.

Secondly at 30K cruising at night the aircraft was practically uninterceptable - speed and a poor radar signal were the keys to that.

Thirdly somehow the Mossie squadrons earned their fame mostly for PRECISION and PATHFINDING. Well there were - in their hayday - various target finding gadgets, roughly the same as the LW used over britain in 1941.

Fourthly - look at Karnak's numbers. Those Mossies were not hauling a lot compared to the Lancasters - however this includes all sorts under BC- thereby also the pathfinder force, - mossies faimed night time job under BC - carrying a mere lightload of flares. The actual average capacity was very much higher and would suffice as a quarter of the Lancaster's normal load (whooping 3900 KG's pro mission vs mossies 670) for the same loss rate - then it is not taken into account that the mossies had a much safer path to target, all losses are accounted for (not just combat losses) - so getting to the bottom of it - a hoarde of Mossies hauling heavier weights of blastbombs at very much higher speeds than Lancs would have been one mean menace....

Finally - the Battle of Berlin which you say the Brits lost.
They did indeed suffer severe losses and they did indeed have to pause or delay some bombings due to that - but they left it in complete rubble none the less.
And this is a return cruise of what - 1000 miles over hostile airspace?
They could of course have bombed something else, - like the rest of the cities - again. But the fact remains that the LW could not stop the BC from reducing cities of choice to rubble, - and that was excercised from 1942 onwards.

Dirty business - war.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Karnak
No, Kurfurst is talking about the low alt missions of the FB.VIs for Fighter Command.  You have to understand Kurfurst's reasoning, it is really simple once you learn it: British = Utter complete garbarge that was the most unsuccesful waste of resources imaginable.  He will then twist whatever numbers he can find to justify his feelings.  Using low level FB.VI intruder losses to claim that Mossie bombers, entirely different aircraft flying completely different mission profiles, had higher losses than other bombers is one such example of his misinformation efforts.

[/B]

You made your uncle Goebbels proud Karnak. He claps for you in his grave.

Note also his metioning of RAF Bomber Command losing "the Battle of Berlin" is something completely fictional..

[/B]

So Peter Hinchliff, author of the excellent monographie 'Night Fighters', the other renewed British aviation historian, Alfred Price, is a fiction writer for they are quite clearly that the RAF-BC was clearly defeated in the Battle of Berlin. Little doubt of that, the night bombing campaign against Berlin and other major cities had to be ceased due to unbearable losses. Something the RAF failed to achieve over the nightly skies of Britain in 1940/41.

 RAF heavies sustained higher and higher losses until the RAF finally cleared the Mosquito Night Fighters to operate over German territory...

[/B]

Fact : Bomber Harris claimed he will knock Germany out of the war by levelling Berlin at the cost of 500 heavy bombers.

Results : 1000+ heavy bombers and their crews (7-8000!) being lost in a few months, Berlin was nowhere near being levelled, heavy bomber losses becoming unberable especially after the disastreous Nuremberg bomber raid, and Germany was still very much in the war.

Thus defeat was acknowlaged by stopping all heavy bomber operations, and 'replacing' them with fast light bombers that were called NUISANCE raids even by the British at that time.

They decimated the German Night Fighter corps in something called "Moskito Panik"...

[/B]

Oh really. Now THAT`s fiction.


 

RAF heavies operated in mass numbers until the end of the war, hardly the sign of a "defeated" force.

[/B]

Strangely, they were rather shy to show over Berlin after the messacre at Nuremberg, so they were clearly defeated at that time.

Once you look at what was really being discussed, you can see that Mossie bombers suffered far lower losses than other bombers, either at night or during the day.  Only the Ar234 could really have bettered that record really.

[/B]

You made me curious. I can show you many extraordinary low loss rates from both the EF or the Pacific, simply because encounters were rare, hardly the merit of the bomber, but the circumstances that made interception and air control very hard, such as a vast area to be controlled.

[Karnak]

Kurfurst,

You're talking about something very much different than we are.  You're talking about how, some, Mosquito bombers were used.  We''re talking about how they could have been used had the British gone with Mossies instead of Lancs.

Also, read up on "Moskito Panik". It wasn't fiction at all and they did take a heavy toll on the German night fighter force.

In fairness to the German's it should be noted that the Mosquito night fighters had a much easier job than the German night fighters did.  All the Mossies had to do was locate tyhe German night fighters.  The Germans never knew if they were hunting a Lanc or being spoofed by a Mossie.  The night way is quite interesting given the cat and mouse game of technology and tactics both sides employed.  The Germans certainly scored some big wins in that fight, but ultimately the British won it.

[Angus]

Uhhh, are you nuts:
"the RAF-BC was clearly defeated in the Battle of Berlin. Little doubt of that, the night bombing campaign against Berlin and other major cities had to be ceased due to unbearable losses. Something the RAF failed to achieve over the nightly skies of Britain in 1940/41."

1. Berlin got levelled in it's "victorious" battle. Got that?
2. As to be expected comparing oranges and apples becomes some people's habit. Night bombing London, merely 100 miles away from base does NOT compare to night bombing Berlin 600 miles from base.
1940 technology in radar interception does NOT compare to 1943 or 1944 in that sense. However the RAF did achieve the abortion of MOST day time bombings on London from 1940 onwards.
I wonder how Berlin would have looked like had it been located near to Calais and firebombed at night in 1941....

Anyway, it went as it went. London got scarred, - Berlin got mauled. Ever been there - to London or Berlin?

[Squire]

"Little doubt of that, the night bombing campaign against Berlin and other major cities had to be ceased due to unbearable losses"

I dont recall the RAF or the USAAF suspending the strategic bombing campaign, despite what setbacks that were incurred, like Schweinfurt/Regensburg for example.

The Combined Bombing Offensive continued untill war end, with both sides introducing better aircraft, technical devices and innovations to combat the other.

No night fighter force in WW2 stopped the bombing, not over Britain, not over Germany, and not over Japan. They caused those offensives to be more expensive, which is what interceptors do.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
Firstly 4000 lbs remain 4000 lbs - it's a choice of bomb. What matters is that it could be hauled.

[/B]

I wonder then why they bother with different size of bombs with different nose and wall thickness etc at all, Angus. Try wiping out a mile long target like an airstrip with one bomb.

Try that thin walled 4000 lbs on brick house. It will blast it, the structure is weak. Try it on a heavy structure like a factory or reinforced concrete - it will probably broke up without detonating, and the blast alone won`t do much damage without digging itself into the structure.

What`s your take, what will do more damage to 5 meter concrete top of a subpen? Ten 4000lbs thin walled 'cookies', or a single thick walled Tallboy ? The 'cookies' won`t even sratch it.

Originally posted by Angus
Secondly at 30K cruising at night the aircraft was practically uninterceptable - speed and a poor radar signal were the keys to that.

[/B]

... and as a tradeoff, it can hit nothing given it
a, does not even see the target, clouds, smoke, complete darkness
b, the speed is simply too high for precision dropping
c, serious dispersion is to be expected from wind and other effects, none of those could be calculated for 30 000 ft altitude.

Thirdly somehow the Mossie squadrons earned their fame mostly for PRECISION and PATHFINDING. Well there were - in their hayday - various target finding gadgets, roughly the same as the LW used over britain in 1941..

[/B]

At what altitude and with what equipment did Pathfinders Mossies bombed, Angus?

At what altitude and with what equipment did nightbomber Mossies bombed, Angus?

- so getting to the bottom of it - a hoarde of Mossies hauling heavier weights of blastbombs at very much higher speeds than Lancs would have been one mean menace...

[/B]

Say 3 Mossies are required to make up for a Lanc.
A Lanc is piloted by one, plus navigator/bomber.
3 Mossies are by piloted by three pilots and nav/bomber.
A Lanc needs engines, 3 Mossies require 6.

Plus if there are no Lancs, then the enemy nightfighters will won`t be busy with them, and all of them will fall on the Mossies - one chief reason why Mossies could get away. If you are LW nightfighter pilot, which will you try to shoot, the slow big bomber with big cost and big load, or the fast nuisance bomber?

Finally - the Battle of Berlin which you say the Brits lost.
They did indeed suffer severe losses and they did indeed have to pause or delay some bombings due to that - but they left it in complete rubble none the less.[/B]

Point is they lost the Battle of Berlin and the goal was not reached, not even in reach. They left rubble, but not that much compared to their efforts, certainly not as much that would worth 3 times the manpower loss the LW sustained in the Battle of Britain without inflicting nearly as much casulties, since that was the goal.

[OttoJ]

lol Karnak has been pawned. You baited him good there Kurfurst with the Battle of Berlin, then slapped him with two British authors when he protested.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Squire
I dont recall the RAF or the USAAF suspending the strategic bombing campaign, despite what setbacks that were incurred, like Schweinfurt/Regensburg for example.  

Well both after Nuremberg/Ploisti/Schweinfurt the raids had to be stopped from coninouing in a similiar way, because losses proved unbearable. It was suspended against these targets, but of course this state did not last forever, replacements took the place of the fallen after a time.

Point is that it HAD to be suspended because of the losses, and not because on their own decision not to continoue them. And this equals defeat.

[OttoJ]

Originally posted by Squire
"Little doubt of that, the night bombing campaign against Berlin and other major cities had to be ceased due to unbearable losses"

I dont recall the RAF or the USAAF suspending the strategic bombing campaign, despite what setbacks that were incurred, like Schweinfurt/Regensburg for example.

The Combined Bombing Offensive continued untill war end, with both sides introducing better aircraft, technical devices and innovations to combat the other.

No night fighter force in WW2 stopped the bombing, not over Britain, not over Germany, and not over Japan. They caused those offensives to be more expensive, which is what interceptors do.

In 1943 after Schweinfurt the USAAF suspended the daylight bombing campaign over Germany until such time as an effective long-range escort fighter was made available. The "self protecting bomber" concept was proved folly as their losses were unsustainable.

[Karnak]

Kurfurst,

The Lanc's crew is not as small as you listed.  It is a pilot, engineer, bomb aimer (laugh if you must), navigator and three gunners.  That is seven to the three Mossie's six total crew.

Yes, three Mossies do use two more engines than the Lanc does, but in the rest of the materials, particularly strategic war materials, they are significantly less than the single Lanc.


The Pathfinders dropped flares from low altitude so that the bombers at high altitude could target the colored flare that was on the target, as I am sure you are aware.  The bombers that followed at high altitude had an easy mark to drop on, greatly improving theith accuracy.  Therefor the altitude of the following bombers is not nearly so much an issue as you would have us believe.


There were interupts to revise tactics for both the USAAF and RAF bombing efforts, but neither was ever stopped for good.  If the Germans did win the "Battle of Berlin" you'd have had trouble telling that from the state that Berlin was left in.


As it happens I think the USAAF and RAF bombing efforts were not particularly well thought out and they could have spent those resources in a far more effective manner, but they were hardly "defeated" by the Luftwaffe.


OttoJ has just made my ignore list.  Kurfurst, despite his habit of calling me a Nazi, has not becuase he has useful data about Bf109s.

[Angus]

Getting confused here.
So Major German cities were NOT in rubble because of huge victories huh?
Hauling bombs with a fast aircraft is pointless because of high speed inaccuracy huh?
A 6 man crew is bigger than say an 7 man or a 9 man crew huh?
1/4th of losses does not count, huh?
High speed does little to avoid flak and nightfighters?
It's easier to intercept 300 little aircraft at 30K doing 300 mph than intercepting 100 big aircraft at 20K doing 200 mph yes?
An aircraft cannot descend from 30.000 feet right?
Gadgets like oboe and so on do not work at 30K right?
4000 lbs bomb has to be a futile blastbomb yes? no AP?
Factories usually have a roof strong enough to hold a 4000 pounder falling from 30K yes?
Berlin was all reinforced concrete yes?
4000 lbs of TNT do not give much punch anyway, right?

Then one for Otto the Frislander:
"The "self protecting bomber" concept was proved folly as their losses were unsustainable."

Indeed. Wonder where the most crippling % of bomber losses in a major raid in daylight occured. Counting those WITH escorts hopping over 100 miles or so that would be those rifled down in the BoB hehehe.

[MiloMorai]

In the days immediately following the surrender of Germany, the Allies
interrogated numerous high-ranking Germans.  All were asked what chief
factor led to their country's defeat.   Here is a sampling and summary of
what they said:

Hjalmar Schacht,  Finance Minister:
  "Your bombers destroyed German production."

Adolf Galland:
"Allied bombing of our oil industries had the greatest effect."

Gen. Jahn, Commander in Lombardy:
"The attacks on the German transportation system."

Generaloberst Heinz Guderian, Inspector General of armored units:
"Lack of German air superiority; the German Air Force was unable to cope
with Allied air power in the West."

Generalmajor Albrect von Massow, Luftwaffe Training Commander:
 "The attacks on German oil production."

Generalmajor Herhudt von Rohden, chief of historical section, Luftwaffe
General Staff:
"Strategic bombing.  It was the decisive factor in the long run."

Generalmajor Kolb, in charge of technical training, Air Ministry:  "The power of Allied day and night bombing."

General Ingenieur Spies, chief engineer of Luftflotte 10:  "Strategic disruption of communications."

Generaloberst Georg Lindemann, commander of troops in Denmark:
"Allied air superiority."

Gen. Feldmarschall Karl Gerd von Rundstedt, commander in chief in the West:
"Three factors:  the superiority of your air force, which made all
movement in daylight impossible; lack of motor fuel so that panzers were
unable to move; and the systematic destruction of all railway
communications so that it was impossible to bring even one single railroad
train across the Rhine."

Gen. der Infanterie Georg Thomas, chief of the German Office of
Production:
"Without strategic bombing, the war would have lasted years longer."

Fritz Thyssen, leading German steel producer:
 "I knew that German steel production would be bombed and destroyed--as it was."

Gen. der Flieger Hans-Georg von Seidel, C in C, Luftflotte 10:
"The decisive factor was disruption of German transport communications."

Gen. Feldmarschall Albert Kesselring, C in C in the West after von R.:
"Dive bombing and terror attacks on civilians proved our undoing."

Generaleutnant Karl Jacob Veith, in charge of flak training:
"The destruction of the oil industry."

Generalmajor Ibel, commander of 2 Fighter Div.:
 "Allied air superiority allowed everything else to happen."

General Wolff, SS Obergruppenfuehrer:
 "The ever-increasing disruption of production and transportation
facilities starved the frontlines to death."

Generaloberst von Vietinghoff, supreme commander SW Italy:  "Allied air attacks on the aircraft and fuel industries."

Oscar Henschel, industrialist:
"American bombing caused our production figures to drop considerably."

Unnamed director of Germany's steel combine:
"The virtual flattening of the great steel city of Dusseldorf contributed at least 50 percent to the collapse of the war effort."

Feldmarschall Robert Ritter von Greim, Goering's successor:  "The
destruction of the Luftwaffe."

Unnamed general manager of Junkers:
"The attacks on the ball-bearing industry disorganized Germany's entire war production."

General Feldmarschall Hugo Sperrle, C in C Luftflotte 3:
"Allied bombing, particularly of communications."

Unnamed executive at Siemens-Schuckert:
"In March, 1943, one bomb ignited the oil tanks in our transformer plant, which we believe is the largest in the world, and completely stopped
production of the large type of transformers needed for chemcial and steel plants.  We were the sole manufacturer of such machines.  We were never able to make them again."

Gen. der Flieger Karl Bodenschatz, chief of Ministeramt, Luftwaffe high command:
"I am very much impressed with the accuracy of American daylight bombing, which really concentrated on military targets, stations and factories, to the exclusion of civilian targets."

Christian Schneider, manager of the Leuna Works, producer of synthetic petroleum products:
"The 8th AF twice knocked out the plant and the RAF did once.  Production, once resumed,  was a pitifully thin trickle."

Alfred Krupp, weapons maker:
 "The Allies made a great mistake in failing to bomb rail lines and canals much earlier.  Transport was the great bottleneck in production.  Plants can be and were dispersed, but the Reichsbahn couldn't put its lines underground."

General Dollman, diarist of the 7th Army high command:
"The continual control of the field of battle by Allied air forces makes daylight movement impossible and leads to the destruction from air of our preparations and attacks."

Herman Goering:  "[USAAF] precision bombing had a greater effect on the defeat of Germany than [RAF] area bombing because destroyed cities could be evacuated but destroyed industry was difficult to replace.  [8th AF] selection of targets was good.  Without the U.S. [Army]  Air Force, the war would still be going on."

[OttoJ]

Originally posted by Angus
Getting confused here.
So Major German cities were NOT in rubble because of huge victories huh?
Hauling bombs with a fast aircraft is pointless because of high speed inaccuracy huh?
A 6 man crew is bigger than say an 7 man or a 9 man crew huh?
1/4th of losses does not count, huh?
High speed does little to avoid flak and nightfighters?
It's easier to intercept 300 little aircraft at 30K doing 300 mph than intercepting 100 big aircraft at 20K doing 200 mph yes?
An aircraft cannot descend from 30.000 feet right?
Gadgets like oboe and so on do not work at 30K right?
4000 lbs bomb has to be a futile blastbomb yes? no AP?
Factories usually have a roof strong enough to hold a 4000 pounder falling from 30K yes?
Berlin was all reinforced concrete yes?
4000 lbs of TNT do not give much punch anyway, right?

Then one for Otto the Frislander:
"The "self protecting bomber" concept was proved folly as their losses were unsustainable."

Indeed. Wonder where the most crippling % of bomber losses in a major raid in daylight occured. Counting those WITH escorts hopping over 100 miles or so that would be those rifled down in the BoB hehehe.

Sure German cities were not much more than rubble when the war ended, but the German still won that night battle for Berlin. I know you're not stupid Angus so I also know you understand that winning a battle does not necessarily mean winning the war. The German won many battles in WWII, but none of those victories could win them the war. The Luftwaffe won the battle over Europe in 1943 when the USAAF suspended their daylight bombing campaign. If the aggressor ceases to attack then the defender has won, surely you understand this. The USAAF came back in 1944 with P-38 escorts and later P-51's and then was able to win air supremacy, the Luftwaffe lost that battle.

I see Kurfurst, MiloMorai, Karnak and you pretending to not understand certain inescapable truths and obvious logic just to further your own little verbal WWII reenactments. Although these "my team is better than your team" arguments you guys have are slightly amusing, they're also pretty stupid.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by OttoJ
I see Kurfurst, MiloMorai, Karnak and you pretending to not understand certain inescapable truths and obvious logic just to further your own little verbal WWII reenactments. Although these "my team is better than your team" arguments you guys have are slightly amusing, they're also pretty stupid.

What are you babbling on about? The only one truely going on about "my team is better than your team" is your good buddy 'German is uber; all else is crap' Kurfurst, aka Barbi. If he did not post his twisted perverted biased manipulated 'facts', there would be no 'amusing' discussions to refute his twisted perverted biased manipulated 'facts' for you to read.

As Karnac says: You have to understand Kurfurst's reasoning, it is really simple once you learn it: British = Utter complete garbarge that was the most unsuccesful waste of resources imaginable. He will then twist whatever numbers he can find to justify his feelings.


BTW, what are other names do you go by?