Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Furball on September 07, 2004, 03:54:53 PM
-
please remove its shrouds HT, pretty please?
-
I unleashed it last night when our eny was pegged. I loved it - flew it for 2 hours and Shawk had to point out in his Ohio redneck drawl :) "Wolf, what are u still doin flyin the Mossie?" Well the eny was peg'd.... "Son, ENY's been turned off for over an hour..." Time flies when yr raising hell - 3 Spits, a Yak, 190 A5 and a LA7. Fights like a 38 if you are cautious with it.
Wolfala
-
I'd dearly love to see a Mossie without the flame dampers, but sadly I'm not sure the data is there for it.
-
I love the mossie!:)
-
I like women in prison movies....
-
I flew the mossie a lot during the beta. It's gorgeous.
The nasty spin and deep stall it can enter is strange - don't fix it! add it to all the other planes instead, the are too easy to fly and nobody fears the stall :)
Bozon
-
yep get rid of the exhaust shrouds or flame dampers what ever you want to call them and mossie will have a new lease of life.
we all know it was almost unstoppable in low level attack missions i europe oftern being faster then anything the germans had close.
but if you unleash it youl perk it!!!!
and the whines will be even louder
rogerdee
-
you can do it HT, unleash the frikken mossie.
YOU CAN DO IT!
PS: mossie is beauty personified.
-
those teeth striking out horizontal thru the lips, very sexy.
not to mention the large steep forehead.
-
Originally posted by rogerdee
we all know it was almost unstoppable in low level attack missions i europe oftern being faster then anything the germans had close.
The FB marks were not that fast. The stories you hear about Mossies outrunning LW fighters are for the most part bomber and recon marks.
-
Hard to hard data, as far as I know, the armed Mossie was not faster than the interceptors the LW had at the time.
There were however some factors that may have helped it successfully "outrunning" the enemy. Would be nice to know some more about it. Ok, a theory:
1. Mossies radar signal was quite weak.
2. Cruising Speed was quite high
3. At 25K or so, it was about just as fast as the LW fighters.
4. Raid missions often were exited from on the deck at very high speeds.
5. Mossies could fight back. Try intercepting a squad of mossies from below, while beliving they are, say a squad of Bostons.
So, not knowing what is being intercepted, mossies need to be approached with some respect.
-
Angus, you too are treating the Mossie as "one plane", it wasn't, and the FB mark (that we have in AH) was an armed version optimized for low level attacks. At 25K it can't even outrun a 109F-4. The fast Mossies were the unarmed bomber and recon marks, and the night fighter version was faster than all but the last LW night fighters of the war. The fighter-bomber Mossie is comparably slow.
-
A list of all Mosquitos and their fates
http://www.dehavilland.ukf.net/_DH98%20prodn%20list.txt
For some reading on the Mosquito as well as other a/c
http://www.vectorsite.net/sitemap.html
Another Mosquito site with data
http://www.home.gil.com.au/~bfillery/index.html
-
In 1943 a Mosquito FB.Mk VI without the flame dampers would flat out run away from any Bf109 and most Fw190s. Certainly the Bf109G-6 and Fw190A-5 could not catch one in a tail chase.
In 1944 things are quite different. The Bf109G-6 with MW50, Bf109G-14, Bf109G-10, Bf109K-4, Fw190A-8, Fw190A-9, Fw190D-9, ect would all be able to run one down.
I am not sure where the Fw190A-6 stands.
So you cannot categoreically say that the Mossie FB.VI could or could not run. You must give the context of the year.
As to fighting back, I am aware of the results of one Fw190 squad vs Mosquito FB.VI squad combat. Four Mossies were shot down and two Fw190s were shot down.
Removing the dampers would raise the survivability of the Mossie in AH as any additional speed helps, but there are still many fighters that could run one down and those fighters tend to be the most popular.
-
So you cannot categoreically say that the Mossie FB.VI could or could not run. You must give the context of the year.
Altitude as well
Tests of an FB VI gave speeds at sea level as 354 mph with 150 octane fuel, 332 mph on 100 octane fuel.
Those figures are with ducted exhausts (which the report notes reduce speed by 13 to 15 mph at 9lbs boost), and carrying drop tanks.
-
When did the Mossies get 150 octane fuel? Certainly not in 1943? A Mossie on 100 octane fuel would be slower than every single engined LW fighter type in service in 1943.
And I think the problem here is not that people are saying the Mossie could not run, but that the LW could not catch it. Both sentiments are of course wrong.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
When did the Mossies get 150 octane fuel? Certainly not in 1943? A Mossie on 100 octane fuel would be slower than every single engined LW fighter type in service in 1943.
~350mph at SL is slower than the Bf109G-6 and Fw190A-5? Since when?
-
"Unshroud it so it can run away faster!!!"
(http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/111202/images/letters-i.jpg)
:D
-
350 mph is slower than a 109G-6 and 190A-5 at 2k. So the LW fighters would need 2000 feet of alt to be faster up to about 7k when the LW fighters start getting a speed advantage at equal alt. Since the FB mark Mossie was a low alt intruder, the LW fighter would almost certainly have an altitude advantage whenever they managed to effect an interception. But that was not easy since the Mossie was so fast, and therein lays its strength, to avoid interception. If caught however they had little chance of escape.
-
If the LW fighter is diving of course it has the speed to overtake if it is reasonably in position. However that was usually not the case because there was no warning of the Mossies being there due to their low alt, high speed approach.
I have several accounts of FB.VIs being pursued at low alt that simply ran away from the pursuing 109 or 190.
If co-alt the Mossie FB.VI in 1943 was faster from probably ~5,000ft on down to SL.
-
With a 2k alt advantage the LW fighters are faster in level flight than the Mossie. Above 7k they are faster in level flight at the same alt, or even with a slight alt disadvantage. Like I said, the Mossie's strength was its ability to avoid interception by staying low, fast and unpredictable. It was a WWII stealth plane if you will. However if intercepted by a LW patrol they were in deep trouble.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Removing the dampers would raise the survivability of the Mossie in AH as any additional speed helps, but there are still many fighters that could run one down and those fighters tend to be the most popular.
Is the Mosquito faster without the flame dampers? I honestly don't know but I asked an engineer with over 40 years experience of working for/with De Havilland (at DH museum, London Colney) and he seemed to think that the dampers actually assisted the Mossie as it helped like a ramjet. I don't know if that was true or not? I always thought the dampers would interupt the exhaust flow.
-
Dampers reduce the top speed by 10 to 15mph. They remove the thrust from the exhaust stubs.
For an example of exhaust thrust look at the A6M3 and A6M5. Same exact engine but the A6M5 has exhaust stubs to produce thrust and the A6M3 does not.
A6M3: 332mph
A6M5: 355mph
-
From an RAF test report posted by Neil Sterling on another board:
In tests reported in the 12th part of report No A&AEE 767,c, it wa shown that the use of ducted saxophone type exhausts in the place of single ejector type reduced the top speed at 9 lbs sq in of Mosquito IV DK 290 by 13 to 16 mph.
-
A Spitfire pilot told me he always admired (with a grain of envy) the Mossie boys. They could run away from the LW he said, they couldn't even catch them in a tail case.
Looking at the mozzie data, this always baffled me a bit.
Would be nice to see a breakdown of mossies in service within given timeframes and their German adversaries.
-
Angus, when 2 small raids on Berlin at the end of Jan '43 that interupted 2 large Party functions Herr Meyer (Goering) had 2 special units formed, JG25 and 50 with special 109G-6s. They were disbanded in less than 6 months due to their inablity to stop the Mosquitos. Might have had 1 'kill'.
-
Alas, my favourite subject.
The sad fact is, the only FB.VI which the A&AEE ever tested with Merlin 25s and ejector exhausts (which, as noted above, did have a "jet" effect) was an aircraft which the testers themselves acknowledged was "unrepresentative of the type." So, the published numbers you see are also unrepresentative.
I've had the Boscombe test files in my hand, at the PRO, and am sad to report that no further test was made, for example on HX809, with the ejector exhausts, by the testing authorities. (Karnak, I owe you an email on this subject - I have your pvt addy somewhere around here, will try to do it this weekend, however I don't have access to a scanner.)
The 354 mph quoted above (for 150 octane) was with both saxophone / shrouded exhausts fitted, as well as wing tanks. The latter reduced speed by a further 5 mph or so.
Plenty of anecdotes on both sides, enough to fill several books (:D ). The fact remains though, the current Mossie's performance reflects an aircraft setup for night ops, and we don't have night. The Day Ranger ops were meant to be run on days where low cloud would afford some cover (though some pilots ignored this - including the man whose name I have adopted, groupie-like, for AH purposes), and we don't have cloud cover. Waaaaa.
Thrila, btw, is my new hero ...
Cheers,
Scherf
PS - The file Milo refers to above has some "issues" here and there, especially the lack of detail whether, for example, "November 6, 1944" is November 6 during daylight hours, the night of the 5/6 or the night of the 6/7, however it is nonethless an excellent resource. I've a mate or two working on private databases, but, as they are to some extent "a life's work", they are never quite finished, and they never quite send them to me...
-
This site has a loooonng list of Mosquito books
http://www.mossie.org/books/Mosquito_books.php
I found this technical book very interesting
The Mosquito Manual (RAF Museum Series #6)
Author(s): Unknown
Publisher(s): Arms and Armour Press (UK), Hippocrene Books Inc. (USA)
ISBN: 0853683913 (UK), 0882544462 (USA)
Date Published: 1977
Format: Hardback, 351 pages.
Notes: Technical specs, no narrative. Reprinted in 1988 by Aston Publications, ISBN 0946627320.
-
Part of a report of 2 Mossies of #418 attacked by Fw190s, April 14 1944
(http://www.mossie.org/squadrons/combat_reports/AIR_50-146-2.gif)
-
Strange how things like that ^ always seem to come full circle.
I wonder if Rheinhard or his Danish contact have seen this board.
Rheinhard's uncle was the pilot of one of the Luftwaffe aircraft which appear on page 1 of that report. The Danish fellow is a researcher, I believe of aviation archaeology, who originally retrieved the report from the archives in Kew.
The whole incident is depicted on the cover of the Osprey Mosquito Fighter-Bomber book - the one with the Mosquito zooming past a blazing Ju 52 minesweeper. It's also mentioned in Dave McIntosh's wonderful book, Terror in the Starboard Seat. Without mentioning Caine by name, McIntosh describes another pilot telling Caine; "that makes up for what you did in the Baltic."
"What [Caine] did in the Baltic" was to force one of the Junkers to ditch, the 5 or 6 members of the crew surviving and clambering out onto the fuselage. Caine then fired a four-second burst of cannon and mgs at them, closing to point-blank range. Rheinhard's uncle was one of those killed.
Scherf
-
Originally posted by Scherf
"What [Caine] did in the Baltic" was to force one of the Junkers to ditch, the 5 or 6 members of the crew surviving and clambering out onto the fuselage. Caine then fired a four-second burst of cannon and mgs at them, closing to point-blank range. Rheinhard's uncle was one of those killed.
Scherf
Not very valiant of Caine.
-
Michael Herrick, born in Hastings on 5 May 1921, was educated at Wanganui Collegiate School. While still a student, he obtained his pilot's licence with the Hawkes Bay Aero Club.
In late 1938 Herrick gained a cadetship at RAF College, Cranwell, and left New Zealand in March 1939 to take up in April what was normally a two year course. The outbreak of war on 3 September led to the course being shortened and Herrick graduated on 7 March 1940. Ten days later he joined 25 Squadron, seven weeks before his nineteenth birthday.
Amongst other duties the Squadron's Blenheims were flying night defensive patrols. During one such patrol on 4 September 1940 Herrick intercepted and destroyed two He III's, the unit's first victories of the war. Nine days later he shot down another He III and this great success in these pioneer days of night interception was recognised by the award of a DFC.
In October 1940 the first Beaufighters arrived and the crews began retraining on the greatly improved airborne radar equipment. On 9 May 1941 Herrick damaged a Ju 88 and on 22 June shot one down.
Herrick was posted back to New Zealand for attachment to the RNZAF and arrived on 23 December 1941. After instructing for two months at the Flying Training School at Woodbourne, he then moved to Ohakea, where he remained until late June 1942, when he joined the newly-formed 15 Squadron at Whenuapai as a flight commander.
The unit had no aircraft, its promised Kittyhawks having been diverted to the Middle East. In response to an American request the squadron personnel sailed from Wellington in October 1942 for Tonga, where they took over the P-40's and equipment of the USAAF's 68 Pursuit Squadron. When 15 Squadron's CO was killed in a flying accident in March 1943 Herrick took command and led the unit through two operational tours until mid-December 1943.
Herrick and one of his flight commanders shot down a Zero floatplane, the first Japanese aircraft destroyed by New Zealand fighters in the Pacific. He shot down another Zero on 7 June, shared a Val dive-bomber on 1 October and a Zeke fighter on October 27. For services in the Pacific Herrick was awarded a Bar to his DFC in February 1944.
Herrick returned to Britain by sea, via the USA, to join 305 Squadron as a flight commander. The unit was a Polish fighter-bomber unit, equipped with Mosquitos and flying night operations, mostly against enemy airfields and V bomb launching sites.
In May 305 began daylight free-lance intrusions over enemy territory. Herrick took off on a morning sortie on 16 June with Flying Officer Turski as navigator. It was Herrick's first such operation and he headed for Denmark in company with another Mosquito, captained by Wing Commander Bob Braham. At the Jutland coast they parted, Herrick making for the airfield at Aalborg and Braham for Copenhagen.
Herrick's Mosquito was intercepted and shot down by a FW 190 flown by Leutnant Spreckels. Both Herrick and Turski baled out but were too low; Turski's body was found in the woods where the Mosquito crashed but Herrick, who had fallen into the sea, was not found until 4 July.
On 25 June Braham was also shot down by Speckels. When the two men met after the war the German said that Herrick had put up a brave fight.
Herrick was awarded the US Air Medal for gallantry in the Pacific. It was presented to his parents in Wellington in July 1944. Two other sons were also killed on active service. Brian Herrick, was lost on 24th November 1940 whilst flying a Blenheim with RAF Coastal Command. Dennis Herrick died on the 30th June 1941 after being brought down into the sea on the 26th June flying a Blenheim on an anti-shipping strike off Brest.
Kurt Welter, a LW ace with 34 confirmed kills shot down 7 Mosquitoes in his Fw190, so the Mossie was not invulnerable by any stretch of the imagination.
-
Edit: After checking, Kurt Welter was credited with 63 victories not 34. Of those 63 victories were 9 daylight Mosquitoes (7 in 190, 2 in 262) and 33 night Mosquitoes (unknown marks).
-
GScholz,
Your intercept story is not specific enough. It does not cover the intercept method used by the Fw190. We don't know if it dove or caught a full out, running, Mossie in level flight.
The issue here is not wether a diving LW fighter could catch an FB.VI it is whether an LW fighter could catch one in a tail chase at the same altitude. In the story MiloMorai posted it seems that the Fw190s closed enough for a burst at one of the Mossies but were unable to maintain that,
Incidentially the Mosquito in AH is Kipp's Mossie.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The issue here is not wether a diving LW fighter could catch an FB.VI it is whether an LW fighter could catch one in a tail chase at the same altitude.
Why is that relevant?
-
Here we go again, another pissing contest over which was better.
Seems to me the message of the thread had something to do with removing the shroud exhausts would give the Mossie some increased speed as was done for Mossies operating in daylight.
I don't recall anyone saying they were invulnerable, just that it gave them the speed to escape.
It doesn't mean that under the right circumstances they couldn't be intercepted or shot down. It doesn't mean it was all superior to the 109 or 190.
Kinda like saying because Mustangs, Tempests, Spit XIVs shot down 262s that it proves the 262 couldn't get away from them.
Bottom line of the thread is it would be nice to see the Mossie outfitted like it was for day operations since we don't have night in AH.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Why is that relevant?
Because if you remove equal altitude from the test I can proof positive demonstrate that the Spitfire Mk V can intercept La-7s.
When comparing aircraft capabilities you must keep the tests the same. Capability tests are not tactical situation tests.
It is obvious that a higher LW fighter will be able to intercept a Mossie FB.VI. That does not need to be clarified. It is also fairly evident that once the interception has occurred the Mossie is in a really bad situation and stands little chance of winning.
-
Spit Vs can intercept La-7s. What are you trying to prove here? That the Mossie FB. VI with ejector exhaust was faster than the contemporary 1943 LW fighters on the deck? I though we had established that.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Spit Vs can intercept La-7s. What are you trying to prove here? That the Mossie FB. VI with ejector exhaust was faster than the contemporary 1943 LW fighters on the deck? I though we had established that.
Nope, but now we have.
-
I though this earlier post of mine made my position perfectly clear. Under 7k the Mossie with ejector stacks would be faster than the 109G-6 and 190A-5.
Originally posted by GScholz
350 mph is slower than a 109G-6 and 190A-5 at 2k. So the LW fighters would need 2000 feet of alt to be faster up to about 7k when the LW fighters start getting a speed advantage at equal alt. Since the FB mark Mossie was a low alt intruder, the LW fighter would almost certainly have an altitude advantage whenever they managed to effect an interception. But that was not easy since the Mossie was so fast, and therein lays its strength, to avoid interception. If caught however they had little chance of escape.
-
It has to be said, shot down some mossies.
It also has to be said, was full of sh*t.
There's a book coming out next year which will deal with Welter among other subjects, the guys who've researched it will give much better info. than I can, so until then, that's all of got to say on the Welter subject.
Cheers,
Scherf
-
Scherf,
What is the title of that book going to be and what is it's subject matter?
One thing that I have read is that German nightfighters frequently claimed any twin engined bomber in 1944 and 1945 as a Mosquito.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
One thing that I have read is that German nightfighters frequently claimed any twin engined bomber in 1944 and 1945 as a Mosquito.
like any single engined fighter around 1940 was a Spitfire :D
-
Hi Karnak:
It's called "Moskitojagd ueber Deutschland", and is (as I understand it) about the various units which were tasked with defending the Reich against Mosquito bombers.
Cheers,
Scherf
-
Welter got most of his night Mossies in the 262 IIRC. The 262 would indeed catch a Mossie. He was also stationed in a squadron that was tasked with countering the Mossie intruders by day in early 1944 flying 190s.
-
Thanks Scherf.
Sadly my German is no where near adequate to read a German newspaper, let along a history book.
I can probably do ok with the German eqivilent of Dick and Jane though.
GScholz,
Of course the 262 can catch Mossies. Now if he was claiming Wellingtons as Mossies it would still pad his total. I'm not saying he didn't kill Mossies at night, but 33 of them seems overly high.
-
Did the RAF fly Wellingtons in 1945?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Did the RAF fly Wellingtons in 1945?
Yes
-
As far as I know, the book will be English-Language, despite the title.
Cheers,
Scherf
PS - Do you know if there's a Mossie "skin template"? Depending on the software required, I could be convinced to get into skinning...
-
There is one being done as described in this thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=129576
It doesn't look like he has a template and his panel lines are excessive. Not that I could do even that given my crap artistic skills.
-
Originally posted by moot
those teeth striking out horizontal thru the lips, very sexy.
not to mention the large steep forehead.
Sounds like my ex-wife.
DuBe
-
GScholz,
Here are the figures for Mosquito bomber losses at night from May, 1943 to May, 1945.
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/MossieLosses.bmp)
With only 108 Mosquitos failing to return I am sceptical that one pilot accounted for 33 of them.
I am assuming that his 33 would have had to come out of the 108 and not the 88 that had to be written off as many LW fans have said that wreckage was required for a kill claim in Germany.
-
WOW... thats 1 lost every 250 sorties or so...
I thought i read that the mossie had lowest loss rate of any allied combat aircraft.
-
Furball,
Here is a chart with Bomber Command losses for the Stirling, Blenheim, Ventura, Wellington, Boston, Halifax, Lancaster and Mosquito.
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/BoCoLosses.bmp)
As you can see the Mosquito losses are dramatically lower than any other Bomber Command aircraft.
-
Bomber Command lost 533 Mosquitoes during the war. That number does not include the losses to Fighter Command and Costal Command Mossies.
-
Does your 533 number include aircraft written off due to battle damage and losses to accidents?
How about PR aircraft?
-
I don't know. This was the ONLY site I could find that listed Mossie losses:
http://www.jtennet.freeserve.co.uk/RAFBC.htm
I don't know what RAF Command operated the PR Mossies, I would guess Bomber Command.
-
Well, I wouldn't take the 533 number to all be due to enemy action.
The two tables I posted refer only to bomber operations and the first chart is specif to night operations from May, 1943 on. Both of the tables I posted give numbers specific to those that failed to return.
EDIT:
Here is a photo of a Mosquito PR.Mk XVI that survived an encounter with an Me262:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/MossMk108Dam.jpg)
And the text to go with it:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/MossMk108DamTxt.JPG)
-
Does it matter what mission they were on? A PR Mossie is just as valid a kill as a NF, B or FB.
-
No, it does not matter, but there were far fewer PR aircraft used.
The bigger problem is that the 533 number does not diferentiate how they were lost.
A Mosquito that returned to base and had to be written off does not count as a kill, but it does count as a loss.
Referencing the two tables I posted wee can see that:
In 26,939 sorties there were 88 Mosquito's written off after they returned. In the same time there were 108 that failed to return.
In 39,795 sorties there were 254 that failed to return and that includes the 108 from the 26,939 nightime sorties. So we know about 342 losses just from those totals. In the 12,856 sortie difference there were surely some that also were written off after returning. If the ratio was roughly the same that would be another 42 airframes for a total of 384. Given that those 12,856 sorties were during daylight and the loss ratio on them was much higher it is probable that a likewise disproportionate number were damaged and had to be written off. Then there are training accidents, PR aircraft that failed to return and PR aircraft that had to be written off after returning.
26,939 night sorties = 108 failed to return. 0.4% loss rate
12,856 daylight sorties = 146 failed to return. 1.14% loss rate
Some of those losses would also be due to flak and not fighters.
-
Those numbers still don't represent the total number of Mossies lost, only a part of them, because they only represent a part of the RAF that deployed the Mossie. I don't know where to find all the numbers, I certainly don't have them.
-
Well, in Fighter Command and Coastal Command the losses of FB.Mk VIs and FB.Mk XVIIIs were significantly higher due to their mission profiles. Many FB.Mk VIs and FB.Mk XVIIIs were lost to accidents and AA fire from the ground and ships. Likewise fighters were a much higher threat to Mosquitos operating in the low level attack profile.
I would imagine that NF Mosquitos had a significantly lower loss rate due to their role. Being the hunter helps a lot, especially when the hunter is surrounded by sheep and cannot be differentiated by his intended victim.
Originally posted by GScholz
Edit: After checking, Kurt Welter was credited with 63 victories not 34. Of those 63 victories were 9 daylight Mosquitoes (7 in 190, 2 in 262) and 33 night Mosquitoes (unknown marks).
Here is your original post. The 7 daylight victories in the Fw190 could have been anything, but were most likely FB.VIs. The Fw190 could certainly intercept a B.Mk IV or PR.Mk IV if it were positioned correctly, but it would be harder. The two in the Me262 would almost certainly have been PR.Mk IVs or PR.Mk XVIs. The night claims would mostly have been bombers with only the rare NF as an additional option if he was operating against the RAF bomber streams as (nearly?) all Luftwaffe nightfighters did. If he was operating outside of the bomber stream interceptors he would have been getting FB.Mk VIs and NFs being used for straffing targets of oportunity.
Other twin engined twin engined RAF aircraft operating at night in 1944 and 1945 would have been the Wellington and Beaufighter.
-
Mossies that FTR from a mission - cause unknown
W4054 PRI 1PRU Missing from PR mission to Trondheim 28.3.43
W4055 PRI 1PRU Missing from PR mission to Trondheim 4.12.41
W4056 PRI 1PRU Missing from PR mission to Trondheim 2.4.42
W4058 PRI 1PRU/1PRU Missing from PR mission to Oslo 17.10.42
W4060 PRI AAEE/1PRU/540 Missing from PR mission to Bergen 20.2.43
W4065 BIV AFDU/105 Missing (Bremen) 19.8.42
W4068 BIV 105 Missing (Cologne) 1.6.42
W4069 BIV 105 Missing (Wilhelmshaven) 16.7.42
DD616 NFII 151/60OTU/151/141/169 Missing from bomber support mission to Cologne 21.4.44
DD661 NFII 264 Missing from night intruder mission to Rennes 11.3.43
DD674 NFII 23/410 Missing from day intruder mission 6.4.43
DD677 NFII 23 Missing 29.7.42
DD684 NFII 23 Missing 9.9.42
DD689 NFII 23 Missing 9.9.42
DD712 NFII 23 Missing 29.11.42
DD721 NFII 264 Missing from night intruder mission to Rennes 12.3.43
DD739 NFII 85/456 Missing on bomber support mission to Kassel 4.12.43
DD779 NFII 410/169 Missing from bomber support mission 3.5.44
DD781 NFII 85/264/307 Missing over Bay of Biscay 25.10.43
DD800 NFII 301FTU/1 OADU/23 Missing on patrol from Malta 2.3.43
This is only the W and DD series.
The list is there for anyone to go through, and you to Scholz.
http://www.dehavilland.ukf.net/_DH98%20prodn%20list.txt
-
what is PR mission?
-
photo recce
-
The anti-shipping role the Mossie was used for was not exactly the Pilot's favourite. Long flight legs, only to get into heavy flak at close range.
However, the Mossie could break a destroyer with a rocket salvo, or so it was said.
Anyway, an amazing record, losing that few!
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I would imagine that NF Mosquitos had a significantly lower loss rate due to their role. Being the hunter helps a lot, especially when the hunter is surrounded by sheep and cannot be differentiated by his intended victim.
Here is your original post. The 7 daylight victories in the Fw190 could have been anything, but were most likely FB.VIs. The Fw190 could certainly intercept a B.Mk IV or PR.Mk IV if it were positioned correctly, but it would be harder. The two in the Me262 would almost certainly have been PR.Mk IVs or PR.Mk XVIs. The night claims would mostly have been bombers with only the rare NF as an additional option if he was operating against the RAF bomber streams as (nearly?) all Luftwaffe nightfighters did. If he was operating outside of the bomber stream interceptors he would have been getting FB.Mk VIs and NFs being used for straffing targets of oportunity.
Other twin engined twin engined RAF aircraft operating at night in 1944 and 1945 would have been the Wellington and Beaufighter.
Yeah, that sounds reasonable, I only have a few comments. The German night-fighters differentiated the different types of planes by their speed. A Mosquito did stand out of the pack in that regard. I remind you that Welter's unit of 190s and later 262s was specifically tasked with countering the Mosquito incursions over Germany. I would surmise that his unit was responsible for most of the Mosquitoes lost to enemy fighters during that period (early '44 - '45).
-
Hi Gents:
Bob Baxter's Bomber Command site, another one of those "life's work" things, ( http://www.bomber-command.info/ ) has Mossie losses by squad and operation, at the level of individual aircraft serials.
He lists a total of 535 BC Mosquitos to all causes. He has "operations" info for 414 of them - this includes aircraft which crashlanded at base on return from an operation (not apparent from the site, but on cross-referencing with other sources, it's clear this is so). The other 121 appear to have been lost to non-operational accidents, etc.
His total also includes night fighter aircraft attached to 100 Group. From very late 1943, this Group supported the heavies by tackling German nightfighters, following on from W/C Braham's work earlier that year with Beaufighters on 141 Squadron.
Naturally, neither of the Bomber Command sites will list Fighter Command losses. I believe PR aircraft were at least initially attached to Coastal Command, so they won't show up either.
Some but certainly not all of the FB.VI losses will be included in the databases above - again, squadrons attached to Bomber Command carrying out support ops.
I'm working on my own database of losses / fates - get back to me in three or four years and I might have an answer for you. Mossie losses, being relatively few, appear much easier to tie back to individual LW reports than seems to be true for other types.
Cheers,
Scherf
Edited for accuracy - I was originally looking at only one of Bob's lists; the one which states what the operation was. The additional group of Mossies has no "operational" info, since they were not on ops at the time they were lost.
-
I wonder if the 2 Group RAF Mossies were counted as part of Bomber Commad. I kind of doubt it which might explain the discrepency.
Dan/Slack
-
Hi Dan:
See my edit for the discrepancy.
You raise a very good point though - I've never been clear on whether 2 Group fell under Fighter Command, Bomber Command, or was a completely independent unit.
There will also be some FB.VI losses in Mediterranean Command (not sure if that is the correct term) and Far East Command (ditto).
Cheers,
Scherf
-
420 IAS at 19.000 feet would be how much TAS?
And wouldn't a AH Mossie just break at that speed?
Love the Mosquito as an aircraft, but not much in AH, it bleeds E too much for that.