Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Furball on September 25, 2005, 12:15:16 PM
-
Average Cost of One Lancaster Operational Sortie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an approximate cost to the British economy based on 1943 prices to build, arm, supply ground and air crew for a Lancaster Bomber for one (1) operational bombing sortie.
1 Lancaster cost £42,000.00 to purchase. (This assumes minimal profits being made by the manufacture.)
1 Lancaster required 5,000 tons of hard aluminium or the equivalent of 11 million sauce pans.
1 Lancaster required the equivalent manufacturing capability required to build 40 basic automobiles of the period.
1 Lancaster absorbed the equivalent manhours as it takes to build one mile (1.61 Km’s) of a modern highway (motorway).
1 Lancaster carried the equivalent radio and radar equipment to fabricate one million domestic radios of the period.
Each member of a Lancaster crew cost £10,000.00 to train. The average cost for a Lancaster was therefore £70,000 or £80,000 if the crew consisted of 8 crew members.
To fuel, bomb, arm and service a single Lancaster required an additional £13,000.00. This also includes an allowance for the cost to training the ground crews.
Thus the average cost to the British economy for EACH Lancaster bombing sortie was on average £100,000.00
In 2005, £100,000 from 1943 is worth:
£2,912,595.98 using the retail price index
(or about $5m)
-
Originally posted by Furball
1 Lancaster required 5,000 tons of hard aluminium or the equivalent of 11 million sauce pans.
Is that including all the machine tools to make it or a typo?
Also note that all of the Lancaster and crew expenses are one time fees for a crew and aircraft that may well fly fifty or a hundred sorties. Those costs would need to be averaged of the sevice life of that aircraft and crew.
-
oops, left out the link.
got it from here http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Lanc-SortieCost.html
-
Without an explanation of how they reached those numbers it is still not clearly accurate. 5000 tons of hard aluminium to make a single Lancaster? I'd really need to see an explanation of that.
In addidtion many of the costs would, as I noted, be one time costs that mean their total is not the cost of your average Lancaster sortie, but rather the cost of a single Lancaster sortie in which a brand new Lanc fails to return and all the ground crew, who were all new and only ever worked on that one Lanc, die in an automobile accident before they ever work on another Lanc.
The number is misleading I think.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
In addidtion many of the costs would, as I noted, be one time costs that mean their total is not the cost of your average Lancaster sortie, but rather the cost of a single Lancaster sortie in which a brand new Lanc fails to return and all the ground crew, who were all new and only ever worked on that one Lanc, die in an automobile accident before they ever work on another Lanc.
The number is misleading I think.
My interpretation of it was they took the cost of everything and divided it to the average sortie life of a Lancaster.
As you say, without an explanation it is hard to tell.
The following is an approximate cost to the British economy based on 1943 prices to build, arm, supply ground and air crew for a Lancaster Bomber for one (1) operational bombing sortie.
-
Agreed. Useless statistics.
I think the realistic cost of the sortie would be:
- gas (and oils, inside and out)
- bombs and MG ammo etc.
- O2 and various other replenishable things, air in the tires and whatnot
- standard pay plus combat pay for the duration of the mission for the crew (not counting training)
- if you want you count prep, pay for armorers/ground crew for the duration of preparation only (not counting training)
- cost to repair any damage sustained during mission (up to and including cost of replacement bomber if this one fails to return)
- if you want to add training costs, add them only for each member of the crew that is killed/seriously injured.
- if any of crew are seriously injured, include hospitalization costs.
I *think* that about covers the cost of a sortie for any single Lancaster. Some things aren't counted until certain conditions are met (don't have to train new crew unless the old crew is killed, etc)
-
If an average life span was say 40 missions, then 1/40th of the cost of manufacture and crew training would have to be amortized into mission cost as well.
-
The figure I've seen for Lancs was 28 sorties.
Just sayin'
-
28 sounds logical. Would actually have thought it was even lower.
But that 5000 tonnes number is off.
BTW a wartime Spitfire was some 5000 ponds Sterling.
-
Wouldnt just the electronic guts of a million radios, fill a medium sized warehouse?
-
Well the round figure would be total manufacturing and operational costs inclusive of all capital, service, material and personnel costs divided by the total number of lanc missions.............
In fact these numbers would be easier to access than the number of aluminium pans used!
Similar numbers were used by de haviland to "prove" that per ton of explosives dropped the Mosquito was a far more cost effective bomber than any of the heavy strategic bombers..........
lies, damn lies and statistics
-
Navies and air forces are not for the budget minded, never have been.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Similar numbers were used by de haviland to "prove" that per ton of explosives dropped the Mosquito was a far more cost effective bomber than any of the heavy strategic bombers..........
lies, damn lies and statistics
Yup, most of the heavies, British and American, should have been replaced by the Mossie. :aok
-
Originally posted by Furball
Average Cost of One Lancaster Operational Sortie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Lancaster required 5,000 tons of hard aluminium or the equivalent of 11 million sauce pans.
Maybe that's 5k tons aluminium ore ?
Any geologist have an idea?
-
Originally posted by Furball
1 Lancaster required 5,000 tons of hard aluminium or the equivalent of 11 million sauce pans.
Its a typo IMO...........empty the Lanc weighed 36500llbs which in old money is 16.29 tons (2240llbs in an English Ton)
By hard the usual reference is to a zinc alloy of alumimium. Most Aluminiums used in the car industry are zinc/silicon alloys with other trace materials. Aero industry today uses Lithium alloys which is nasty stuff to cast ............I think the 1940's aero industries used versions of duralium which is a copper alloy of aluminium with manganese and other trace elements.
-
Actually, the number of 28 sorties comes from a docco I saw in the P.R.O. re: relative weight of bombs delivered by Lancs and the cookie-equipped mossie. I believe the term used was "life load", comparing the average tonnage dropped by Lancs and their life expectancy in terms of sorties, vs the respective numbers for the mossie with the cookie, all expressed in terms of the investment required.
Lanc larger investment, bigger load, shorter life-expectancy.
-
Much shorter life expectancy and much greater loss of men when one was lost.
The Mossie would have been a better bomber than the Lanc if produced and used in hordes, but Arthur Harris was in love with the idea of big planes dropping bombs by the gross.
-
Here is the data on sortie totals, tonnage delivered and aircraft lost:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/BoCoLosses.bmp)
-
Thanks Karnak.
Always wondered about the load/sortie number for the Lanc. As that's in tons, it works out to about 8728 lbs per sortie - I thought the Lanc's capacity was well above that?
-
Longer ranged missions would carry less tonnage. Many B-17 raids were 4,000lbs per bomber.
-
Cheers Karnak.
-
and the mozzie needed way less bombs to bring a site down due to its superior precision, but the RAF didn't feel safe with no tail gunner bombers (they prefered sitting ducks like the blenheim lol)
Am not well placed to talk, the french in 1939 still had flash red and blue combat uniforms, they just missed the feather on the hat lol. The german didn't need flares to paint ground target, they just looked where soldiers were :rofl
-
Originally posted by Noir
and the mozzie needed way less bombs to bring a site down due to its superior precision, but the RAF didn't feel safe with no tail gunner bombers (they prefered sitting ducks like the blenheim lol)
wtf?
blenheim first flew in 1935 and was actually about 50mph faster than any fighter in service at the time.
it was not preferred to the mosquito, and was pretty much withdrawn from service by the time the mossie was introduced!
that fact is, it would not have been worth replacing the RAF heavies with the mossie because the heavies could carry over 4 times the bombload.
The argument is, the mossie could carry a similar load to a daylight raid by b17's / 24's without the vunerability of the bigger bombers.
-
Originally posted by Scherf
Thanks Karnak.
Always wondered about the load/sortie number for the Lanc. As that's in tons, it works out to about 8728 lbs per sortie - I thought the Lanc's capacity was well above that?
Also they would often load up with cannisters full of incendries and such, which were much lighter, they would not always take a full load of the heavier HE bombs.
-
All a moot point now, sadly. I didn't get long enough with that file at the PRO - I was hoping it would go into more detail about the man-hours required for the heavies and the mossies. Perhaps it does, but I had to get back to the real world...
I suppose I'm not alone in wondering why there weren't more of them. (I think wartime production was around 6,700 of the 7,800 or so total production - most common variant was the FB.VI).
-
Originally posted by Noir
and the mozzie needed way less bombs to bring a site down due to its superior precision, but the RAF didn't feel safe with no tail gunner bombers (they prefered sitting ducks like the blenheim lol)
[/B]
Hmm, 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.
As for the claimed reduction of loss rate, actually Mossies had about DOUBLE the loss rate than normal bombers operating in the daylight, ie. 8% vs. 4%. The most common FBVIs could carry 1000, then 2000 lbs of bomb, not much more than a fighter bomber or other types, and far-far less than true heavy bombers. It was LIGHT bomber, designed because of shortage of material, not a wonder weapon, but proved versatile. As a night bomber, it was used after the Bomber Command was defeated in the Battle of Berlin, and normal heavy bomber losses would be unbearable, so nightbomber mossies were despatched to keep up the attack for at least propaganda purposes, for the actual damage from a single bomb release somewhere 30 000 ft over Berlin at 400mph was negliable an totally random in its effect. As some poster put it on LEMB, the Mossie was a "high profile nuisance" for the Germans. It had some propaganda value, but very little actual effect as a bomber. As nightfighter or fighter bomber, it was much-much more useful, and oddly much less acknowladged.
-
am no blenheim expert sorry, just thougt of it cause it looks really crappy :)
mozzie could have been intruced way earlier in its bomber version since de havilland had already it ready, but RAF choose to only use it as recon at first.
my point is that even if the heavier bombers could carry 4x more bombs, they needed more bombs to bring a target down. I can't prove my point since I can't find back the webpage about it. I got pwned ! :)
from what I've read mozzies couldn't be used as high alt bombers, so they couldn't take their role.
-
For the 8%, are you talking about Bomber Command?
As for the delay in getting it introduced - IIRC there was a gap of something like a year between the initial proposal and the initial order. Got it all at home in the books, but I'm on the road now so I can't check. There was also a second order to stop development during the crisis of 1940, but I believe Geoffrey de Havilland in his memoirs says he basically ignored this latter instruction, counting on a later flip-flop.
All so much "what-if" really - fact is the heavies outnumbered the mossies.
Does anyone know when the Lancs started to roll off the line, and how many factories were involved?
PS - Thanks Furby, hadn't considered the inceniaries - horrid things.
-
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.
Note also his metioning of RAF Bomber Command losing "the Battle of Berlin" is something completely fictional. RAF heavies sustained higher and higher losses until the RAF finally cleared the Mosquito Night Fighters to operate over German territory. They decimated the German Night Fighter corps in something called "Moskito Panik". RAF heavies operated in mass numbers until the end of the war, hardly the sign of a "defeated" force.
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.
Evidence suggests that had the British put the resources into Mossies that they put into Lancs and Halibags they would have delivered more tons of bombs for lower losses. Using Pathfinder Mossies increased the accuracy of the main RAF raids, be they other Mossies or big four engined bombers, to the same level as USAAF daylight raids or better. What it came down to is that you could get three of four Mossies for the resources used in one Lanc. However, due to the choices made by the British how the Mossie would have done as the primary RAF bomber will never be known
Noir,
Mossies most definately could be used as high alt bombers. Even Kurfurst acknowleges that. The reason they didn't play a big role was politics and the fact that Arthur Harris was infatuated with the massive bombers, carpet bombing civilians. He didn't want Mossies at all.
-
BTW some bomber mozzie could hold the 4000lb "cookie" bomb....I want that to sink cvs LOL
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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. :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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?
-
The scary part is that you probably believe that. You're just as biased as him, and you intentionally look for every opportunity to confront him or "discretely" mention his views (and your opinions of them) in completely unrelated threads. It's very much like a compulsive disorder with you.
-
Otto, there is an odd definition in this:
"If the aggressor ceases to attack then the defender has won, surely you understand this"
Sure. But they did not cease to attack. They paused, licked their wounds, then carried on with increasing power.
I'd say they lost the round but won the match, as well as their side won the title if you see what I mean.
But in the BoB daylight ops, it was a K.O. Total withdrawal, never to be repeated in daylight with any noteable strength.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Otto, there is an odd definition in this:
"If the aggressor ceases to attack then the defender has won, surely you understand this"
Sure. But they did not cease to attack. They paused, licked their wounds, then carried on with increasing power.
I'd say they lost the round but won the match, as well as their side won the title if you see what I mean.
But in the BoB daylight ops, it was a K.O. Total withdrawal, never to be repeated in daylight with any noteable strength.
What is your definition of a battle? To me the battle ends when the shooting stops. When the RAF later returned it marked the start of a new battle. One that they won.
Why do you compare LW daylight bombing with RAF night bombing? When did the RAF ever bomb Germany during the day? When did the Germans stop bombing London in night raids? And if you think sending a few Mosquitoes to Berlin is a continuation of the battle then surely the few Fw190G night-bombers sent to annoy the British even into 1944 was a continuation of the London blitz in 1940? Obviously I'm jesting and I don't believe you are this stupid.
-
Picking at fringe issues are we not.............
Battle of Berlin was about levels of city attrition.............Battle of Britain was about air superiority..............
If the objective of a "Battle" is not met then it is not won............is it therefore lost?
Many "Battles" can be seen as victories for both sides due to differing objectives........... further splitting ongoing conflicts into a series of "Battles" is often a propaganda tool to high light the best view of the conflict by one side over another.
We should be beyond that here.
De Haviland had a point IMO...........multiple lower cost medium bombers capable of rapid ingress and egress at safer altitudes were more efficient.
Talk of accuracy is useless.......nothing was point accurate unless the bomb was "put" on the point target. (low level)
A city is a big target when all you want to do is terrorise its occupants..............
For less cost Harris's first 1000 bomber raid would have been a 3000+ Mossie raid at altitudes where a large portion of LW interceptors were pretty useless.
Further, it can be argued that lower levels of Mossie attrition would have led to a higher growth rate in mission ready BC Mossies.......... Harris's Dresden raid may have been a factor higher still had the Mossie been the bomber of choice..............
if, whats and maybe's................
It did not happen, its all speculative.............
Re the above quotes.............. according to these quotes the Red Army had nothing to do with Germanies eventual demise? .......Incredible!.....I can only think them to be "selective" at best.
-
WWII was not one big battle. It was a series of battles interrupted by brief periods of calm. By Angus' logic the Germans didn't win the Battle of France in 1940 because they lost it in 1944. Idiotic.
When one warring faction withdraws to "lick their wounds" and surrenders the field of battle to the enemy they have lost that battle. Whether they return at a later stage is irrelevant.
-
Otto, tsk tsk tsk.
Operation, Battle, campaign, - all a sequence of things. Operations become battles, battles being a part of a campaign and so on.
The particular operation to knock Germany out with a massive bombardment on their capital has been named "the battle of Berlin". BC failed there and lost.
But be wary, - many (German) historians and LW veterans do not even to this day recognize the BoB as a "battle"
Anyway, Berlin kept on being bombed untill it was mostly rubble, - I wonder if the Berliners consider the Battle of Berlin to have been won by the LW, - as they kept being on the receiving end untill the war ended.
Germans indeed won the french campaign, BTW
-
Originally posted by Angus
Germans indeed won the french campaign, BTW [/B]
NO THEY DIDN'T :D
-
The one in 1940, - of course they did. They lost the second french campaign in 1944 FYI :D
Now if those had occured with 4 days within each other instead of 4 years, one could have a second thought about that....was it one battles or two, - one offensive or two, one campaign or two, - giggle :D
-
Operation and campaign are nothing more than words used to describe a series of battles aimed at achieving a strategic goal.
How long did the RAF take to "lick their wounds" then? A week? A month? Several months? I bet the people of Berlin felt it was a victory at the time.
-
Originally posted by OttoJ
I bet the people of Berlin felt it was a victory at the time.
A young woman in Berlin once told me how happy the locals were to see the Russians.
I didn't believe her, either.
-
Hehe, you were in eastern Berlin I bet.
I worked in Germany with a guy who was drafted at the age of 15 to work with a flak unit. His whole class actually. At the end of the war, half of them were dead. We travelled from Pirmasens through Cologne all the way to Essen where our job was waiting, en route he told me how almost everything had been destroyed, the cities in rubble and most knew there was no chance for victory.
Guess some in the high-up-hills figured too late.
Germany should have wisely surrendered in 1944 or so.
-
If you knew what you had done or helped do with the deathcamps etc. would you have surrendered?
I don't think so. ;)
Nor do I believe the Soviets would have accepted a surrender.
-
Guess some in the high-up-hills figured too late
They knew but there was no other option that victory in their doctrine
-
Originally posted by OttoJ
If you knew what you had done or helped do with the deathcamps etc. would you have surrendered?
I don't think so. ;)
Nor do I believe the Soviets would have accepted a surrender.
The Soviets almost certainly WOULD have accepted a surrender. Then they would have turned around and done exactly the same as they did in reality--rape the country, steal everything that wasn't bolted down (and a lot of things that were), and exact an exquisite revenge for their losses.
-
After the firebombing of Hamburg it was noted in the German high command that if some couple of such attack would have occured within the space of a month or two,Germany would have capitulated or had no choice than surrender.
FYI, the firestorms that occured in Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo are a side effect, not easily doable with human effort, and were quite not planned and expected.
Anyway,- most of the German population was not aware of the deathcamps,- neither were the allies with the exceptions of British intelligence which gave a B&W implying image of it, and then in 1944/45 the Russians as well as the allies started overrunning those camps.
Rotten business, this war.
-
Rotten business, this war.
All wars are rotten business.
-
There was a good one I remember, - They COD WAR :D
From the BBC:
"Cod Wars
The first 'Cod war' took place in 1958, when Iceland, extended its coastal fishing limit, from 4 miles, to 12 miles.
The Second Cod War started in 1972 when Iceland extended its coastal non-fishing limit to 50 miles.
It ended with an agreement between the two countries that limited British fishing to restricted areas, within the 50-mile limit.
This agreement was valid for two years and expired on November 13 1975, when the third "Cod War" started.
Between November 1975, and June 1976, the cod brought two NATO allies to the brink of war.
Great Britain and Iceland confronted each other as Iceland proclaimed its authority to 200 miles from its coastline.
British trawlers had their nets cut by Icelandic Coast Guard vessels and there were numerous rammings between Icelandic ships and British trawlers and frigates.
Iceland claimed that it was merely enforcing what would soon be international law.
Disastrous agreement
The USA offered to mediate, but it was NATO intercession that helped to end the conflict.
Iceland and Great Britain came to agreement on June 2 1976. A maximum of 24 British trawlers were allowed inside the 200-mile limit.
The annual cod catch was limited to 50,000 tons.
The agreement led to unemployment for 1,500 fishermen together with 7,500 onshore workers.
Common Fisheries Policy marks the End
By the 1930s, British fishermen bought home 300,000 tonnes of cod annually. EU officials say today there are only 70,000 tonnes of adult cod left in the North Sea."
look here: http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/CodWar.htm
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Yup, most of the heavies, British and American, should have been replaced by the Mossie. :aok
I don't agree.
Harris summed it up:
"We had in England those who took the same view as the leaders of the German Air Force, that bombers should be light and rely on their speed and manoeuveratability to evade the enemy's air defence. The Mosquito was, in fact, the direct outcome of this controversy between supporters of the light and supporters ofd the heavy bomber; when rearmament was being planned there seemed to be no reason why we should not have the best of both worlds aand add something like a thousand or so light bombers to the four thousand heavies. Unlike the Germans we grasped the point that any ordinary bomber is cold meat to any ordinary fighter, and so a light bomber, the Mosquito, was designed which should be at least as fast, and probably faster, than the average fighter. But in the end the wisdom of concentrating on the heavy bomber was conclusively proved. The decisive factor was the supply of pilots; the heavy bomber carries about three times the load of the medium type, but both aircraft only need one pilot. It is certain that even with the whole resources of the Empire Training Scheme we should never have got enough pilots to fly enough medium and light bombers to drop the load of the heavies. And of course, the problem of concentrating the bombload, if it had been carried out by many light bombers instead of by a comparatively few heavies, would have been insoluble." (From Bomber Offensive, Sir Arthur Harris. pp100-101)
It would also be wrong to suggest that a few Mossies could do the job of many heavies because of better accuracy. A high flying Mossie was just as accurate or inaccurate as a High flying Lanc. Also, if The Mossie had a single 4000lb Cookie, the chances of it hitting where it was aimed were minimal. It was like a giant dustbin and had similar ballistic qualities.
With our luxury of 20/20 hindsight, we can sit and judge the actions of those who made the decisions in the Bomber Offensive, but they were living in that moment under extreme stress. "What ifs" are always interesting though.
As far as who won the Battle of Berlin goes, I would hate to get involved in that one. Suffice to say that many German commanders claimed that Britain didn't win the Battle Of Britain.
-
N'yuh-huh, Harris' hubris knew no bounds.
Far better to feed aircrew into the heavies, where life-expectancy was less than a third of that on Mossies. After all, there's a limited supply of pilots. :huh
Oh, and I love the "we" in the question of designing the mossie - talk about 20/20...
-
De Havilland was turned down with his proposal of the Mossie, and didn't get anywhere untill he launched the prototype from his own finance,- the stunned audience learning that they were looking at a twin engined attacker made mostly out of wood that was faster than the standard fighters in cervice.
I'd rather have 15.000 mossies than 5000 lancs,- you need 15000 pilots instead of 5000-10.000, but each will survive 3x as many missions as a minimum remember, there are no gunners and such, and the aircraft is multi purpose.
Well, I must still say that the Lancaster was quite good.
-
Strangely Guy Gibson who led the Dambuster died in a Mosquito.
If you really want to know which he preferred try reading "Enemy Coast Ahead"
Mosquitos were involved in some of the more outrageous missions of WW2 -
Amiens prison raid
Bombing the Reichstag twice in one day interrupting speeches.
Raid on Gestapo HQ in Oslo
But saying that, only the Lancaster could carry the two biggies - Tallboy and Grandslam. Without them the submarine pens at Brest, and various bridges and tunnels would have been left intact.
As I've said try reading "Enemy Coast Ahead".
-
Bear in mind:
1: Your Oslo quote is probably the raid on the Gestapo HQ in Copenhagen when a Schoolhouse was hit. Why? Read up, you'd be surprized
2. There was a parallel raid on Aalborg I belive. Hospital 200 metres or so away from target. Read up.
3. The Night bombing accuracy of the Lancasters is largely credited to the pathfinders. Which were mostly and most successfully Mossies ;)
-
An addition. I expect you to get some stuff about the Copenhagen raid. It's hereby been partially countered inforehand :D
-
No there was also a riad on the Oslo Gestapo HQ.-
Vidkun Quisling, the Nazi puppet ruler of occupied Norway, was to give a rally at the Gestapo headquarters in Oslo that day. Four B.IVs of Number 105 Squadron were assigned to break up the party. The building was hit by four bombs, three of which detonated.
Another weird one -
During the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944, Bomber Command B.XVIs performed an interesting variation on the low-level attack, attempting to toss Cookies into railroad tunnels. This was tricky and not completely successful, though at least one tunnel was caved in using the trick.
Now the Mosquitos turned their attention back to the Gestapo, engaging in what almost became a private war. On 11 April 1944, six FB.VIs of Number 613 Squadron struck Gestapo headquarters in The Hague, the Netherlands, destroying German records on the Dutch Resistance. Two bombs were tossed into the front door of the building.
On 31 October 1944, 18 FB.VIs hit a Gestapo office building at Aarhus University in Denmark. They came in so low that one Mosquito went back home with a piece of masonry in the fuselage. On 21 March 1945, Mosquitos hit Gestapo headquarters in the middle of Copenhagen. The mission was successful except that the strike leader's Mosquito hit a bridge and slammed into an elementary school, with many civilian casualties.
How about Highest Night Photo=
The highest night photograph of the war was taken on April 18, 1944, over Osnabruck. The RAF Mosquito crew used a target indicator flash and took the picture from 36, 000 feet.
Copenhagen?
OPERATION CARTHAGE (March 21, 1945)
At the request of the Danish resistance movement, a force of RAF Mosquitos from 487, 464 and 21 Squadrons of 140 Wing, escorted by Mustangs of Fighter Command, attacked the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen. The Gestapo had taken over the five storey Shell House, the pre-war H/Q of the Shell Petroleum Company. On the day of the raid it housed a large number of Danish resistance fighters who had been arrested and were being interrogated as the first bombs fell. Some prisoners were killed but 30 escaped during the bombing. Some 151 Gestapo agents and their Danish collaborators were also killed.
Although the raid was a success, a horrific tragedy occured nearby. One of the Mosquitos, on its bombing run, struck a light mast in the railway goods yard, veered to the left and crashed in a ball of fire near the Jeanne d'Arc Catholic School. The fire and smoke from the crash was mistakenly targeted by the next wave of Mosquitos which dropped their bombs on and around the crash site. The resulting fires soon spread to other buildings and eventually engulfed the school which burned to the ground in less than two hours. Eighty-six children and ten teachers lost their lives in this tragedy and sixty-seven were injured. When rescures reached the school cellers they found the bodies of forty-two children huddled together. They had all drowned in water from the firemen's hoses.
And yup, they EXCELLED as pathfinders.
-
I have several good books on the Mossie, particularly the one by Martin Sharp and Michael Bowyer. The above quote from Arthur Harris in no way resembles the development of the Mossie. It was fought at every step and taken off the list more than once. Only Geoffrey de Haviland and Wilfrid Freeman's efforts did the Mosquito make it into production. Harris didn't want it at all.
Kurfurst is right that the high level, Mosquito only raids were little more than high profile nuisance raids. It was much more effective in other roles given the production decisions made higher up. If the Mossie had been the focus with the Lancaster as a secondary bomber for special tasks like sub pen breaking the all Mossie raids might have been vastly more than a high profile nuisance. If the Mossie had been the focus, a larger percentage of them would have been lost than historically because the Germans would have had to focus of Mossie killers rather than the easier to make Lanc killers. The Mossie's higher cruising speed would make interceptions harder to do and multiple interceptions by a single nightfighter as happened to Lancs and Halibags much harder.
The particular area of Mossie combat that interests me are the intruders and Gestapo raiders. Big bombs are nice and all, but I prefer guns and smaller bombs.
-
If I recall correctly theres a photograph in "Enemy Coast Ahead" that shows the Bielefeld viaduct.
It is surrounded by hundreds of craters from previous attacks that failed to bring it down.
About 30m from it is a very very large crater, the single "Tallboy" that did bring it down.
Yeah I think the Mossie crews and the Gestapo had their own little private war going on.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Yeah I think the Mossie crews and the Gestapo had their own little private war going on.
I don't know. A war implies the ability of both sides to fight and the Gestapo seemed all built up to bully the helpless whereas they were just targets for Mossies.
-
True.
What is interesting is the numerous reports of aircraft returning with masonry, chimney pots and foliage imbedded in them because they flew that low.
Thats the one problem with our Mossie (AH2), in real life it VERY RARELY caught fire, AH2 you only have to light a match within 6 miles of it.
Trivia - Fastest Mosquito was the prototype, achieved 703kh/h. Initially it achieved 624km/h (or 632km/h depending on source), but speed was increased with new engines.
Amiens prison wall after Mossie raid
(http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/war/mosquito5.jpg)
Aarhus Gestapo HQ
(http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/images/aarhus1.jpg)
"So close to their objectives did the machines fly that one machine left a tailwheel on the roof, and another buckled the engine nacelle, while the pilot of the third saw a bomb from a Mosquito in front of him strike the side of the building, come out through the roof and pass over his own plane before it went down again. "
-
The AArhus raid was one masterpiece.
The Copenhagen raid was unlucky. My next door neighbour has a friend who was on the fire brigade that nigh :(
I have some details on the raids, but my book is in another house.
BTW, after the war, Johnny Johnsson's squadron, finding out what happened, put up an airshow in Copenhagen, funds being raised for the wounded children and the families of the deceased.
The Gestapo were some Ba$tards, and to think of how gritty things went in small and peaceful countries like Norway and Denmark, I am even more happy that it was the Brits who got to Iceland first ;)
-
Harris's point re pilots was valid for 1940 to mid 43 but not valid there after.
By mid 43 prospective RAF heavy bomber pilots were being diverted and trained as flight engineers and radar operators rather than being sent to Canada for training.
In fact by 44 flight engineers for Lancs and Halifaxes were in shorter supply than pilots.
for Harris the Lancaster was the only aircraft that counted.
-
Harris did tend to have tunnel vision. He does allude to his anti-lightbomber views in the quote I used. I was using what he said to illustrate the man-power point, not endorsing Harris, per say. Anyone with a real interest in Bomber Command's offensive in WWII might find it interesting to read his book, though it's heavy going, and not exactly a page turner. As long as his views are taken along with opposing views, (and everything inbetween) it helps to build up a picture of what really went on.
All kinds of bombers were proposed during WWII and most of them didn't get off the drawing board - remember the Victory Bomber? - so something new like the Mosquito wouldn't have neccessarily seemed like an obvious winner when it was first suggested.
I personally think the Mosquito was a great plane. A relative of mine flew in them for the Banff Strike Wing in NE Scotland against targets in Norway. I have a collection of gun camera prints that I inherited from him. Incredible pictures from his aircraft (and others in his squadron) making rocket attacks on shipping and an amazing shot of a Mossie attacking a surfaced U-boat in the North Sea.
-
Yes Tilt, I know one person who was to go to pilot school but was diverted to WAG school.
This what BCATP graduated:
pilots - 49,808
navigator - 15,870
navigator 'B' - 9795
navigator 'W' - 4298
air bombers - 15,673
WAG - 18,496
AG - 14,996
flight engineers - 1913
naval AGs - 704
Was the Lanc needed? For sure, for its heavy lift capacity. Was the B-17/B-24 needed? Debatable.
-
Originally posted by KD303
A relative of mine flew in them for the Banff Strike Wing in NE Scotland against targets in Norway. I have a collection of gun camera prints that I inherited from him. Incredible pictures from his aircraft (and others in his squadron) making rocket attacks on shipping and an amazing shot of a Mossie attacking a surfaced U-boat in the North Sea.
And ofcourse you have a scanner and we can see those pics later today?:aok
-
KD303:
If you haven't already done so, you *must* read "A Separate Little War", by Andrew Bird.
It is a detailed account of all of the Banff Wing's ops, with added info for the Dallachy Wing and the Mustangs, and includes wherever possible information from Norwegian and German sources.
Fabulous book.
-
Originally posted by mipoikel
And ofcourse you have a scanner and we can see those pics later today?:aok
I was thinking about that. They have Crown Copyright stamped on the back, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt. The surfaced U-boat picture appeared in a book (and probably others) some years ago and also appears on a website about the wing, but my copy is far better and was clearly taken from the negative, whereas the copies I've seen all seem to be copies of copies. I will hunt my collection of Banff pictures out and scan some and post them, as long as nobody tells on me! Some are small and some are about 10 by 10. I wish I knew more about them, though I know a fair bit about the Strike Wing and the various missions undertaken. The relative in question died a long time ago, hence me getting my grubby little hands on them, so I'm not sure if he was even on all the missions depicted in the Photos. I say that, because if he was, then he had a hell of a war! Most of the pics have the date and Lat and Long marked on them, so I could probably find out who flew which mission. He was a Nav, which must have been very, very scarey. The ops they flew to Norway were among the most hazardous the RAF regularly undertook - flying a Mossie or Beaufighter across the North Sea, attacking at low level with rockets and cannon then, maybe hit, nursing it back home again. If things went wrong, survival was very unlikely, though one or two crews were picked up by trawlers or Warwicks. Sometimes though, they'd have to land in "Brighton" (code word for landing in neutral Sweden).
Ironically, I also inherited a photo album from him, which was full of photos of a cruise he went on to Norway just before the war. The final picture is of a beautiful Norwegian Fjord and underneath, he had written, " Until the next time."
-
Originally posted by Scherf
KD303:
If you haven't already done so, you *must* read "A Separate Little War", by Andrew Bird.
It is a detailed account of all of the Banff Wing's ops, with added info for the Dallachy Wing and the Mustangs, and includes wherever possible information from Norwegian and German sources.
Fabulous book.
I have read it and it's very well researched. I also have some pictures from the Dallachy Strike Wing, though sadly none from the Peterhead Mustangs. When I get round to posting my Banff pics, I'll also post some Dallachy Beaufighter pics. I have a sequence taken from the gun cameras of different aircraft from 144 and 455 squadrons of a successful shipping strike in a Norwegian fjord in April '45 as well as others taken during what I believe was the last offensive RAF attack of the European war.