Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Yarbles on April 14, 2008, 01:37:38 PM
-
Having seen the never ending strategic bombing good idea or not thread I thought I would ask a question that has been bugging me on and off ever since I read a book about the Nuremburg raid that effectively was then end of the "Battle of Berlin" 1944
Why didnt bomber command drop the heavies altogether in favour of mass mossie atacks. Mossies could carry the 4000lb cookie though maybe not to Berlin (but maybe could have been modified), had vastly superior surviveability, a crew of only 2 and could get to Berlin and back twice as fastr as a sterling. Ok 2 mossies is no where near 1 lancaster in bomb load but Haliaxes were flying up to the end and if mossies survived better eventually maybe 3 mossies or four per heavy for the same effort. If bomber command could send a 1000 heavies why not 3000 mossies.
-
'Bomber' Harris liked the big bombers. I understand he actually tried to block Mossie bombers from seeing wide service.
-
My assumption is there was no way they could make enough 4,000 lb cookies and no way they could make enough Mossies. Not just that but the Mossie just didnt have much of a bombload, not compared to the heavies. There was also other uses for the Mossies, like nightfighters and recon models.
Besides it all comes down to economics. For the price of the airplane, the fuel, the bombs, airplanes like the Lancs sould simply drop more bombs on an enemy for cheaper then could an all Mossie force. Losses from operating such Heavies were reduced by flying them at night.
Further dropping 4,000 cookies on targets that could be destroyed with 500lb HE would be silly and wasteful. You wouldnt watse an 88mm shell to kill ides the typical bombload for the Mossiean enemy infantryman when you have 4 machine guns to do the job would you? Besides the typical bombload for the Mossie was 2,000lb.
-
Agh but Rich if the heavy was shot down there was no bombs on target.
It took more than 1 500lb bomb to destroy the same target the 4000lb bomb dropped by the Mossie and with more precision.
Two Mossies carried the approximate same bomb load as the B-17 to distant targets. The B-17 and B-24 should have been replaced (well most of them) by the Mossie. Any heavy lift requirements could be filled by the Lanc and Hallie.
There was a mod for the Mossie (never introduced) that would have had 6 500lb in the bomb bay and an option for 2 more under the wing.
-
AFAIK, read with care...there may be errors but to sum up:
Mossies got it through the somewhat stupid filter of the air ministry by being made out of material amply more availeable in the time of war than what was so necessary for aircraft production....plywood vs aluminium.
The Mossie, at the time of when the prototype flew, and stunned the air ministry folks was absolutely overperforming anything in the close maps of time and reality.
And...the Mossies could deliver at night, and with the accuracy and noteably the safety which made THEM the pathfinders for the bombers.
From history, their delivery efficiency as well as their service record was absolutely amazing.
Read up on Leonard Cheshire for a point of interest BTW.....;)
-
My assumption is there was no way they could make enough 4,000 lb cookies and no way they could make enough Mossies. Not just that but the Mossie just didnt have much of a bombload, not compared to the heavies. There was also other uses for the Mossies, like nightfighters and recon models.
Besides it all comes down to economics. For the price of the airplane, the fuel, the bombs, airplanes like the Lancs sould simply drop more bombs on an enemy for cheaper then could an all Mossie force. Losses from operating such Heavies were reduced by flying them at night.
Further dropping 4,000 cookies on targets that could be destroyed with 500lb HE would be silly and wasteful. You wouldnt watse an 88mm shell to kill ides the typical bombload for the Mossiean enemy infantryman when you have 4 machine guns to do the job would you? Besides the typical bombload for the Mossie was 2,000lb.
i dont know about that, it was made off wood wich they had plenty of
-
Rich,
You have the economics backwards. A Lanc cost far more than two Mossies, had a crew four times the Mossie's and a loss rate far, far above the Mossie. An all Mosquito bomber force would have been much more cost effective.
RAF Bomber Command Loss Rates:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/BoCoLosses.bmp)
Mosquito Bomber Losses:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/MossieLosses.bmp)
-
Rough average of bomb load delivered per sortie
Lancaster: 3.89 tons/sortie
Mosquito: .675 tons/sortie
There's your answer right there.
-
Rough average of bomb load delivered per sortie
Lancaster: 3.89 tons/sortie
Mosquito: .675 tons/sortie
There's your answer right there.
That includes a lot of pathfinder missions on which they dropped only flares for the Lancs and Halibags. It also includes the early Mossies which were initially limited to four 250lb bombs and not the developed Mossies that would have been used for a major effort. 'Cookie' enabled Mosquitos carried either a 4,000lb bomb or four 500lb bombs in the bomb bay and one 500lb bomb under each wing.
Mosquito bombloads were functional. Moreover, Mosquitos had a much higher percentage of bombs on target, which makes the raw tonnage numbers misleading.
-
Oh I'm aware of that. However as pointed out, how many sorties would have actually even been FLOWN with the cookie? Also, if the Luftwaffe had ONLY the fast Mosquito to contend with they would have just adjusted their tactics and aircraft designs accordingly and I bet you'd see your Mosquito losses escalate.
If small, fast, one or two-man fighter-bombers was all that was needed to do the job, heavy bombers would have been phased out long ago and aircraft like the B-2, or even the old B-52 wouldn't be around today.
-
Guided missles change a lot of tactics.
And I agree the Luftwaffe would have ajusted tactics, but there really isn't all that much that they could do about Mosquito bombers until nightfighter Me262s came into it. Piston tech just doesn't have an effective answer to fast, high flying bombers.
Lots of 'cookies' were dropped by B.XVIs, but I don't have a number. It was a common load for them.
-
Oh I'm aware of that. However as pointed out, how many sorties would have actually even been FLOWN with the cookie? Also, if the Luftwaffe had ONLY the fast Mosquito to contend with they would have just adjusted their tactics and aircraft designs accordingly and I bet you'd see your Mosquito losses escalate.
If small, fast, one or two-man fighter-bombers was all that was needed to do the job, heavy bombers would have been phased out long ago and aircraft like the B-2, or even the old B-52 wouldn't be around today.
The problem the Germans were having with the mosquitoes was that its cruise speed (not its max speed) left a very small window to intercept it. If they misjudge the interception even by a little, it will develop into a long chase. Especially at night, setting such an accurate interception course was far from trivial.
Escorting mosquitoes by fighters is also more efficient, as the fighters can fly at their best cruise speeds (actually, the mossies cruise faster than the fighters). Any interference by the escorts would have caused the interceptors to miss their opportunity and fall behind and having a difficult time in setting up a second attack.
The heavy loads carried by WWII bombers were not for putting more TNT on the target - it was for throwing more TNT in the general direction of the target in hope you get lucky and hit with a few bombs. Yes, the Lancs were much more efficient than the mossies in firebombing cities, that much is true.
Virtually all post WWII bombers, dropped almost all defensive armament for speed or stealth defense. I think it was mostly a case of short sightedness that made bomber command stick with their heavy bombers.
-
Piston tech just doesn't have an effective answer to fast, high flying bombers.
Necessity is the mother of invention...:)
Moreover, Mosquitos had a much higher percentage of bombs on target
I've seen you discuss this in numerous forums and I'm just curious as to how this data was gathered. Is this anecdotal or is there hard data? (And I'm curious, not argumentative). Weren't most Mosquito bombing missions night missions? I haven't read a whole lot about the British bomber campaign, but what I have read was that the cookie wasn't supposed to be a point target/precision weapon. It wasn't even fin stabilized was it? The book "Tail End Charlies" stated that it was mainly designed to be a compliment to the incendiary weapons used by the heavies.
-
Last time I looked, there was a good thesis on the direct costs to the Brits of the strategic bombing campaign at:
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/664/2/adt-NU20050104.11440202whole.pdf
The Brits also did a calculation in September 1943 of the comparative costs of the Cookie Mossie vs. the Lanc as below. Lanc bombload I believe represents the load which the contemporary model could carry to Berlin - overload tank in the bomb-bay, IIRC, though I'm willing to be corrected by the local Lanc-fans:
"AVIA 46/116, which is the "Official Historian's type biography of the Mosquito", which says the Lancaster cost 2.8 times as much as the Mossie in terms of standard man-hours (84,000 vs 30,000) - no mention made of ???. This was part of the famous calculation for the Cookie Mossie which went thus:
Mossie: 92 sorties per write-off
Lanc: 28 sorties per write-off
Average Cookie Mossie load (proposed, see below): 4,000 lb
Average Lanc load June & July 1943: 7,450 lb (don't ask me, I'm only the messenger)
Therefore:
Moss/Lanc relative effectiveness =
(92 sorties * 4,000 lb / 30,000 man hours)
_____________________________ _____
(28 sorties * 7,450 lb / 84,000 man hours)
= 12.25 lbs bombs dropped per man hour / 2.48 lbs dropped per man hour
= 4.95
It also notes that the "life load" of one Lanc, given the above life expectancies and weights carried, is less than 60% of that of the Mossie (while costing 3 times as much labour and using twice as many Merlins). It also notes, to use their term, that "crew wastage" in the Lanc is 4 (sic) times higher.
It says the Hallies only had a life expectancy of 20 sorties."
As to the Germans "just" adjusting their force to meet an all-mossie threat, that's in the WouldaCouldaShoulda file, but I don't see much in the history of the LW that indicates an ability to switch / develop types quickly.
At the Australian War Memorial site (I *think* it's www.awm.gov.au ) one can download the official history of the RAAF. There's a note in there that, in the Spring of 1944, the idea of re-equipping up to 3 Groups in Bomber Command exclusively with Mosquitos was actively debated. I have not found any more information than that - hoping to get a copy of Frankland & Webster Vol II to see if there's anything in there. My *guess* (based on a history of 8 Group) is that the demands of the Transportation Plan, ahead of Overlord, were based on a # of bombs per square yard. Over the short haul, the heavies carried more of these than the mossies, whose numbers could not be doubled / tripled in the time available.
-
I've seen you discuss this in numerous forums and I'm just curious as to how this data was gathered.
I would think it would be from post raid PR photos. PR missions were flown to assess the damage done on the raid.
At one time the Americans considered building the Mossie. Not sure what happened for them not to.
Further to Saxman's comment, the heavies cruised at ~180mph while the Mossie cruised at ~300mph.
-
It has been on the board before, but I couldn't find it:
After a raid on some site in Denmark (AFAIK) some Mossies were intercepted by 190's, I think at low altitude.
After a long chase and not gaining the 190's broke off and went home.
Anyone have a file on this?
-
As for modifying tactics to counder the Mossie, the Germans created a squadron of 109's with the specific job of intercepting the daily Mosquito raids on Germany. They didn't shoot down one. It is in Galland's book 'The First and the Last', he had high praise for the Mossie, as did Goering.
-
Those would be JG25 and JG50.
-
There's a number like that - for both the Fighter-Bombers and the Bombers.
edit - err, posted too slow, was in response to Angus above: After a long chase and not gaining the 190's broke off and went home.
-
I susspect Harris was constantly trying to "Win the war by bombing alone" in the next 6 months. In the light of the data a longer term shift from heavies to Mossies would have been far more cost effective. Using the data provided so far it seems highly likely that a huge maybe 4000+ force of mossies could have been built up over time which would have been far more effective. I susspect this was apparent but short term considerations meant it was never seriously considered.
-
Well, it can be seen well into the war how strong the big-bomber religion was. The USAAF opened their daylight bombing on the Germans without escorts, while the RAF had learned to work at night,- such was the belief on heavy defensive armament.
THere were discussions about completely skipping or at least minimizing the Lancaster's armament on the night missions, just to make them faster. But it was discarded for what some have called morale issues.
Can't remember where I found it,but it had figures of performance increase, which was considerable.
Think of it,- streamlined nose and no top turret, - you have something both faster and quite lighter, with fewer crew, and I didn't skip the most important turret yet.
BTW, Mossie crews would sometimes sneak upon Lancasters, I think by accident. (recognition came when close), but I do not recall an incident where they were spotted.
Imagine a Lancaster doing 40 - 60 mph extra...what would that have been like?
Or with a Griffon,- the somewhat close relative of the Lannie,- Avro Shackleton, had a takeoff max at 39 tonnes and could yet go 300 mph, somewhat faster than the Lannie, and with 10 tonnes more.
Makes one wonder...
-
Why Mossies were not used instead of the heavies?.
Easy: the Air Ministry would hear nothing about that. And especially Bomber Command. Bomber command had a lot of political power to put pressure on anyone who didn't go their own way. One instance: for four years Coastal Command had to flew with a collection of barely adequate planes over the Atlantic because they weren't allowed by Bomber Command to get a decent sized force of land based long range planes the Bomber Command "desperately needed to bring the offensive over Germany". While Britain was fighting for it's very survival in the Battle of the Atlantic, Coastal Command (by far the best weapon the British had vs submarines by then) had to make do with an ad hoc force of planes not suited for the task, going from Avro Ansons up to Whitleys.
The Hudsons in the CC were planes the BC had already rejected. The B-17 Mk.I and Mk.II flew with the CC only after the BC had found the plane unsuitable for bombing missions. Wellingtons, Halifaxes, etc were all in short supply because the BC had the priority over them, and Harris won't give any of them easily.
Thanfully for UK, the Sunderland gave a sterling service all that time. Until the introduction of the Liberator VLR with the Coastal Command was by far the best plane the Coastal Command had to field, and the one which gave more nightmares to the german U-boats.
But it is quite an example of the Bomber Command's political power. It was the most powerful branch of the RAF during WWII, and they made that power felt. That the RAF branch fighting a fight for the survival wasn't give a tenth of the resources the Bomber Command (a branch with Britain didn't depend on for her survival) was being given at the high-spot of the Battle of the Atlantic gives a useful hint about it.
And now , why no more mossies?. They weren't able to exercise "saturation bombing", or "area bombing". With a force of Mossies with just one 4000 pounder per plane you can't set a whole city sector's on fire. But with a force of Lancaster carrying a full load of incendiaries, you got apocaliptic fire storms and whole devastated city sectors.
Why no mossies? because Harris won't hear about it. He was convinced of the effectivity of Area Bombing over Precision Bombing. Mossies were highly precise, using Oboe in fact they had a much better hit ratio by nights than the american heavies flying during daytime. But Harris didn't want to hear about planes hitting precision targets: he wanted whole german cities on fire. So what he got was a RAF flying night sorties of hundreds of Lancasters to devastate cities instead of hundreds of Mosquitoes to devastate precision targets- losing thousands of air crews in the meantime in Lancasters, while had RAF used Mosquitoes, much less aircrews would've been put in danger, and much less of them would've died.
Harris' word was a very serious thing indeed, he was the chief of Bomber Command and as we have seen Bomber Command was the loudest and most powerful voice within the RAF. His doctrine was Bomber Command's doctrine. And within that doctrine, all the Mossies could do were to act as pathfinders, to mark with extraordinary degree of accuracy those areas the heavies were to smash later. "thanks" to him many germans civilians died needlesy...but even worse (From a warring nation's perspective) "Thanks" to him many british air crews perished needlessy. I won't say what do I think about Harris...It's pretty clear.
anyway that's the reason the Mossie never got to be the main RAF night bomber. It never got the priority the plane deserved...the reasons are explained avobe.
-
You'll be giving us a source next.
-
You'll be giving us a source next.
This may serve you:
"The right of the line"
John Terraine
Wordsworth Military Library
ISBN: 978-1853266836
-
Thanks, will have a look.
-
Harris wasn't AOC-in-C of BC til Feb 1942.
Harris followed through the city bombing campaign with dogged determination, he did not conceive the idea or have any part in its discussion. The plan to switch targeting priority from precision bombing of specific targets to the area bombing of industrial centres was conceived by Air Ministry planners and supported by Lord Cherwell, Churchill’s Chief Scientific Advisor who justified the policy as the ‘dehousing’ of industrial workers.
http://www.rafbombercommand.com/people_commanders.html
-
Why Mossies were not used instead of the heavies?.
And now , why no more mossies?. They weren't able to exercise "saturation bombing", or "area bombing". With a force of Mossies with just one 4000 pounder per plane you can't set a whole city sector's on fire. But with a force of Lancaster carrying a full load of incendiaries, you got apocaliptic fire storms and whole devastated city sectors.
My point would be with sufficient mossies saturation area bombing would also be possible. Mossies surviveability would mean in the long runm a larger overall force and bomb load for any type of bombing. In 1944 around 75% of bombers werent surviving a tour. 2-3000 mossies could shurely deliver the same bomb load as 1000 lancs far more accurately and even in area bombing there were allot of misses.
My point is Harris's strategy was too short term probably for political reasons and an objective effort over a longer period in hindsight would have favoured and all mossie force.
-
Harris wasn't AOC-in-C of BC til Feb 1942.
And with him came the total obsession about area bombing. BC was already obsessed with area bombing already, and kept a zealous priority over any bomber Britain could build or import. But Harris carried both tendences to the extreme.
In fact, about area bombing,and until 1942 there was little chance the british Bomber command could hit anything in Germany in any other way. But since the radio navigations systems were on line by 1943 (and H2S radar too), precision bombing was more than possible. In fact the degree of accuracy exhibited by mossies flying and bombing with the Oboe system was extraordinary, yet Harris insisted in keeping the area bombing up until the end of the war. While in 1942 area bombing was understandable as the only way to effectively attack germany with bombers by night, by 1944 it was not anymore.
He was an inch from dimission when he was forced to put the Bomber Command away from the main night "bombing offensive" so the planes could fly in support of the preparation bombings for Overlord (where they had to attack precision targets, something he despised. BTW the RAF bombers showed an excellent precision in those attacks, pointing out that area bombing wasn't now the only way the bombers could hit german targets), such was his hate for what he called "Panacea targets" (economig targets requiring precission bombing, instead of targetting civilians)
But back on topic...Harris always supported the use of heavy bombers. In fact in this he was in the same line as the whole of the Bomber Command. To have a fleet of mosquitoes attacking german economic targets with a high degree of precision wasn't something worth a thought for him (neither in the Bomber Command. I think there was never a suggestion to do something as increasing mossie's production at the cost of a lower 4-engine bomber production): he wanted a fleet of lancasters dropping tons of bombs over german cities.
-
The "NOT" bomber command, - i.e. naval-ops related had all sorts of aircraft in many odd places before there was area bombing in Germany.
We had all sorts of aircraft as far as up here in Iceland. Wellingtons included. As soon as 1940/41.
One of the first German U-boats to be captured intact was off the south coast of Iceland, some Cessna hour from where I live, - subdued by one 2 engined aircraft. I think it was a Douglas but would have to look it up.
BTW, when exactly did the area bombing start? 41 or 42?
-
Would you care (RRAM) to give some more info on the Nav systems?
While the Germans had the finest of those for night ops already in 1940, the curve of the earth + extra odd 500 miles to go do make a heck of a difference you see....
-
The "NOT" bomber command, - i.e. naval-ops related had all sorts of aircraft in many odd places before there was area bombing in Germany.
We had all sorts of aircraft as far as up here in Iceland. Wellingtons included. As soon as 1940/41.
One of the first German U-boats to be captured intact was off the south coast of Iceland, some Cessna hour from where I live, - subdued by one 2 engined aircraft. I think it was a Douglas but would have to look it up.
BTW, when exactly did the area bombing start? 41 or 42?
British bombers started operating over germany by late november 1939. They never stopped operating over it until the end of war, except for the time the Bomber Command had to fly bombing operations supporting overlord preparations.
Bombings of german cities was already happening mostly since the war's start. Well, or at least tries to bomb german cities. Most british bombers in the 1939-41 time frame dropped bombs very far from target due to very serious navigation problems (they flew and bomb using star navigation).
Regarding radio guidance systems for british bombers. They were based on radio, but not the same as the german X-gërat, Y-Gërat or Knickebein (basically the german radio nav systems focused on the use of Lorentz beams).
Oboe was a very accurate system the british used to bomb german targets. In a given night, and for a certain target, two radio stations in england, with a large separation between them, were transmitting all the time. A british bomber with Oboe equipment had a transponder than when it received the signal, sent it back to the radio bases. The bases, calculating the time the signal had taken to go to the bomber, and back to the base, calculated the exact distance of the plane to the transmissor/receiver.
Prior to the bombing, the transmissors designed for the operation calculated the exact distance to the target between it and the transmissor itself. One of the stations "drew" a circle with the distance to the target, and the bomber navigated along that circle, at a constant speed and altitude decided in the mission planning. The other station "drew" a circle intersecting with the first one at the exact point where the bombs where to be released to hit the target given the plane's altitude and speed.
When the mosquito, flying along one of the transmissors "circle" crossed the other station's "circle", it dropped the bombs.
The accuracy was extraordinary. I don't recall the numbers by memory but the system had a CEP of around 100 yards at some 600km distance. When the system was re-made to allow for centimetric wavelenghts the accuracy increased quite a bit. Mosquitos with Oboe were as accurate, if not more, by night, than american bombers bombing in daylight using optical sights.
The germans didn't find out how oboe worked until it was already months in the use by the british. They tried to jam it, but by then Oboe was already using centimetric wavelenghts, and the germans never jammed this version.
There were more radio-guidance navigation/bombigs systems used by the british, such as Gee, but none was as successful as Oboe. And they even set up a system of beam-navigation analog to those of the Germans in 1940 to fly over germany, as a deception for the germans to lose sight on the radio navigation principles the british systems really used. Once the Germans realized it was a deception (late 1943), they stopped trying to jam the beams...and the british went on to actually use them for navigation until the war's end (and I think some of those stations are still operating today)
With all this advantages in precission bombing by night, Harris was still sending thousands of bombers to do area bombing until the end of the war. The conclussion to extract about Harris, is plain to see.
-
Didnt Albert Spear say a few more Hamburgs and they would have been in real trouble.
I would have thought a mossie based combination of precision and area bombing with the 4000 bombers Harris never got but might have been possible using the more durable Mossie???
What then?
-
Why didnt bomber command drop the heavies altogether in favour of mass mossie atacks.
Because the Mosquito was not as cost effective.
The British Bombing Survey Unit (the British version of the USSBS) gives the following figure for man-months per 1,000 lbs of bombs dropped:
Lancaster - 9.5
Mosquito - 16
Halifax - 27
Wellington - 27.5
Stirling - 38
Lots of 'cookies' were dropped by B.XVIs, but I don't have a number.
According to Sharp and Bowyer in Mosquito, about 10,000.
Mossies could carry the 4000lb cookie though maybe not to Berlin
Range with the 4,000 lb bomb was 1,370 miles. Berlin is just under 600 miles by a straight route. According to Sharp and Bowyer, Mossies dropped 1,459 4,000 lb bombs on Berlin in 1945.
British bombers started operating over germany by late november 1939. They never stopped operating over it until the end of war, except for the time the Bomber Command had to fly bombing operations supporting overlord preparations.
Bombings of german cities was already happening mostly since the war's start.
From the start of the war until March 1940 the RAF was not allowed to drop any bombs on Germany. They attacked only German warships at sea, because bombing warships in dock was seen to present too high a risk of killing civilian dock workers.
The other 2 missions the RAF flew in the period were reconnaissance and leaflet drops.
On 16th March the Luftwaffe carried out an attack on naval installations in the Orkney islands. Some of the bombs hit civilian housing, killing a civilian. In response to that, on 19th March the RAF bombed the seaplane base at Hornum, on the island of Sylt.
There were no further bombing attacks by the RAF until the night of the 10/11 May, following the German invasion (and bombing) of France, Belgium and the Netherlands. At that point the RAF flew a small number of sorties (8, I believe) against German road and rail targets west of the Rhine. They were not allowed to attack any targets east of the Rhine until 15/16 May, following the Luftwaffe attack on Rotterdam, when they began attacking military targets in the rest of Germany.
Well, or at least tries to bomb german cities.
The first time the RAF targeted a city, as opposed to attempting to bomb a precise target within a city, was on the 15/16 December, when 130+ bombers were sent to area bomb Mannheim, in response to the attack on Coventry.
-
Because the Mosquito was not as cost effective.
The British Bombing Survey Unit (the British version of the USSBS) gives the following figure for man-months per 1,000 lbs of bombs dropped:
Lancaster - 9.5
Mosquito - 16
Halifax - 27
Wellington - 27.5
Stirling - 38
So would this take into account suviveability as it appears to conflict with other data we have seen here i.e. the projected number of sorties before the plane and presumably the pilot was written off. I would assume training the pilot would be one of the greatest costs. Also a thousand pounds from a mossie would be a considerably more accurate 1000.
-
From the start of the war until March 1940 the RAF was not allowed to drop any bombs on Germany. They attacked only German warships at sea, because bombing warships in dock was seen to present too high a risk of killing civilian dock workers.
The other 2 missions the RAF flew in the period were reconnaissance and leaflet drops.
notice how I did phrase my previous post. I said british planes operated over germany at night since november 1939. Not that they started bombing since then ;)
The first time the RAF targeted a city, as opposed to attempting to bomb a precise target within a city, was on the 15/16 December, when 130+ bombers were sent to area bomb Mannheim, in response to the attack on Coventry.
In the night of the 25/26th August 1940, 81 Bomber Command aircraft were sent to area bomb Berlin. That's quite a deal before December ;)
I think there were some more instances of RAF attacking german cities by night prior to December '40, but I gotta check some books to look for that and atm I can't.
-
Your making the error of assuming that "Bomber Command" had access to the Mosquito XVI in 1942-43. By the time that version was available, it was March 1944. The Mosquito B.IV carried 4 x 500 bombs. Thats 1/6th of what a Lancaster/Halifax would carry on a trip to Germany. By the time the Mosquito B.XVI was available the war was in its final 14 months. Even a Moss XVIs bombload with a "cookie cutter" was 1/3 of that of a heavy.
...Also, Mosquito production was filling orders for Night Fighters, Coastal Command Strike, Fighter-Bombers, and Bombers, ect, it could not simply "replace" the entire heavy bomber force on a whim. It takes time and money (lots of both) to switch factories over to a new type, build them, and get all the squadrons switched over, even if they decided they wanted to (which ultimately they didnt).
Hindsight of course is 20/20, you can debate wether they should have or not, but its not just a case of picking one varient and assuming it was readily available to replace other a/c. Its not that simple.
-
So would this take into account suviveability as it appears to conflict with other data we have seen here i.e. the projected number of sorties before the plane and presumably the pilot was written off. I would assume training the pilot would be one of the greatest costs
It includes training costs.
In the night of the 25/26th August 1940, 81 Bomber Command aircraft were sent to area bomb Berlin. That's quite a deal before December
No. 21 Wellingtons were sent to attack the Siemens factory in Berlin, and 3 separate marshalling yards elsewhere in Germany. Because of cloud cover over Berlin, only 1 of the Berlin aircraft bombed.
46 Hampdens were sent to attack the Klingenberg power station, Henschel aircraft factory, Tempelhof and Pangsdorf airfields. Again because of the cloud, only 10 bombed.
22 Whitleys were sent to bomb Siemens. 2 actually attacked, another bombed flak defences on the outskirts of Berlin, and one carried out a low level attack on dockyards at Bremen.
These were not area attacks. Indeed, RAF orders at this time were that if a precise military target could not be identified, aircraft were to bring their bombs back, or jettison them at sea. Most of the aircraft that set out to bomb Germany on the 25 did not actually do so because they could not identify any military targets through the cloud.
-
Hindsight of course is 20/20, you can debate wether they should have or not, but its not just a case of picking one varient and assuming it was readily available to replace other a/c. Its not that simple.
Agreed, but i would contend Harris was only ever thinking short term and was probably under pressure to come up with short term targets that would end the war.
The resourses used to build the heavies would not easily have translated into mossie production and I believe outdated Halifaxes were still being built up until the end in small numbers.
The highest loss rates were for deep penetration raids on Berlin and the like where the heavies were unable to repeat their earlier succeses over the Ruhr and Hamberg. These raids could only be carried out in winter because of the long nights but it is likely given the speed the mossie could have and did bomb Berlin etc all the year round.
With hindsight a fast accurate medium/light Bomber force would have been the better option.
-
Sounds like your really questioning the targeting of the bombers as much as you are the types used. I agree with your points, Berlin was the capital, but ultimately, rubbling it was not going to end the war (using Mossies or Lancs, or any other type). The industrial targets of the Rhur, and Germanys oil targets were much more important. I would not have bothered with Berlin (either the RAF or USAAF), it was a long way, and it was more a symbol than anything else, when they could have sortied to more important targets.
-
The B.Mk XVI was not the first 'cookie' carrier Mossie. The first was the B.Mk IV Special, followed by the B.Mk IX. If Mossies had been prioritized things like the Mk IX and Mk XVI would have been built in much larger numbers.
Also the reasoning for man hours per 1,000lbs on Germany may have been a deciding factor, but it is flawed due to the tremendously greater accuracy of the Mosquito's 1,000lbs.
As to the "destruction of Germany's workforce by destruction of Germany's cities" policy, the Mosquito was actually quite capable of disrupting the workforce without killing it simply by denying them rest by means of small night raids that resulted in air raid sirens, search lights and AAA fire keeping the workers awake. This tactic was actually used with large success.
Basically I agree with RAM's comments.
-
Sounds like your really questioning the targeting of the bombers as much as you are the types used. I agree with your points, Berlin was the capital, but ultimately, rubbling it was not going to end the war (using Mossies or Lancs, or any other type). The industrial targets of the Rhur, and Germanys oil targets were much more important. I would not have bothered with Berlin (either the RAF or USAAF), it was a long way, and it was more a symbol than anything else, when they could have sortied to more important targets.
Well there was the argument that destroying German society would destroy their ability to make war. Or at least help destroy it. Every city in that country in some way helped their war effort, even if it didn't have heavy industry in it. The entire country was mobilized in some way. Killing the workforce alone was worth the price paid in heavy bombers and incendiaries.
In 2008 it all sounds inhumane but in 1945 raining mass death on German and Japanese society was an effective tool. There is no way to gauge its effectiveness but I will say having monsters like Bomber Harris and Curtis Le may on our side saved countless Allied lives. And it takes no great stretch of imagination to picture what Germany or Japan would have done to our cities had they the means.
Luckily they didn't and we did.
-
I have heard that Germany and Japan did come up with a plan to fly about 20 or 30 Kawanishi H8K2 'Emiliy' flying boat recon-bombers to the Gulf of Mexico, link them up with some German cargo U-Boats to arm and fuel them and then using them for bombing raids on Detroit, or other US targets. I understand Hitler was enthusiastic about the idea, but the war situation changed (Midway and such) so it didn't happen.
-
I have heard that Germany and Japan did come up with a plan to fly about 20 or 30 Kawanishi H8K2 'Emiliy' flying boat recon-bombers to the Gulf of Mexico, link them up with some German cargo U-Boats to arm and fuel them and then using them for bombing raids on Detroit, or other US targets. I understand Hitler was enthusiastic about the idea, but the war situation changed (Midway and such) so it didn't happen.
A raid? Now this was a raid http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/thousands.html
-
I think Harris was not just grossly in favour of heavy bombers......... he was very much in favour of the Lancaster. He considered Halifax production wasted when it could be used instead to produce Lancasters.
The Mossie was very much left of field with respect to prevailing views. De havilland of course produced all the statistics quoted above and made a good arguement.
Harris however had to run an Airforce.
An airforce that, in order to drop a proportionate amount of ordinance using Mossies, would
require 5 trained mossie pilots in service for 1 lancaster pilot and 1 lancaster engineer/copliot
require 5 trained mossie Navigator/bomb aimer/radio operatives for 1 trained navigator, 1 trained Bomb aimer and 1 trained radio operative in a Lanc.
True the lanc also required 2 additional gunners but the training of such was of little consequence to Harris.
To Harris, a crew was not to be counted in human lives but instead counted in training hours and readiness.
From Harris's perspective Mossies required higher calibre pilots and more of them. Further Mossies required higher calibre navigator/bomb aimer /radio operatives and more of them. Gunners he could pick up from the RAF regiments for free.
Plus Harris wanted big city breaking raids........ He was not into depriving work forces of sleep.............He was into terrorising workforces to an extent that they would loose all will to resist. (we can argue over the effectiveness of this elsewhere)
He wanted 1000 Lancasters (or their like) to achieve this. Trying to mass 5000 mossies and achieve the same would have been a nightmare of air traffic control and co ordination.
We only then have to imagine the ground crew support of 5000 mossies (10,000 engines) to 1000 Lancaster (4000 engines) and we see why Harris wanted the Lancaster.....it was simply the easiest route to achieve his objective
-
Ok I will say it clearly. Yes; Harris, to achieve its criminal objective of killing as many german civilians as possible, needed a big force of Lancasters ,not mossies.
While doing it, he achieved ,at its best, dubvious benefit to the war in progress at the moment. Destroying cities did some damage to Germany's war effort. But not as much ,and by far,as a precission bombing campaign carried on by a bomber force based on the Mosquito against the economic strategic assets of Germany would've done.
It's already said avobe that the mossie flying by the night and with oboe, had an equal if not better accuracy than a daylight bomber with optical sights. We all know how much damage did the 8th AF day bombing offenive on German economy. Now double it, and you get an idea on what a combined day/night precision bombing offensive would've achieved on the german economy.
After doing this comparison keep in mind:The historical night bombings by the Bomber Command did not achieve much (from the economic point of view) on the german war effort. Out of terrorizing civilians while killing them on the thousands and injuring them on the millions, german war economy didn't suffer especially out from this attacks (any factory or strategic target hit or affected by chance in an area bombing would've been equally destroyed in a precision bombing by night...but in this second way a lot of civilian lifes would've been spared).
And now look at the loss statistics of the Lancaster over Germany, and that one of the Mossies used in night bombing operations, and try to guess the number of BRITISH lives he would've saved basing his bomber force on the mossie rather than in the Lancaster.
So harris needed the lancaster to achieve his objective. Yes, he did. And yes, he achieved his objective: he killed hundreds of thousands of german civilians, sent thousands of his own aircrews to die (when they could've been much safer in another plane with a different mission), and all to achieve a pyrric objective (at its best) instead of focusing on the german economic and military strategic targets, not killing hundreds of thousands german civilians, and saving a lot of his own aircrews' lifes, while achieving a sensible result in the war.
It's a good result for a war criminal as himself.
BTW, a mossie with Oboe needed a pilot, and a radio-operator. Not a Radio operator/navigator/bomb aimer. Oboe/Gee would make navigation easy for a trainee in navigation with radio experience, and the bomb release was automatic (no manual bomb aiming involved at all). To get a working mosquito in the air you needed a trained pilot and a trained radio-operator. Nothing more. From the human resources point of view the Mossie was so much efficient than the lancaster that the comparison simply doesn't stand up.
-
The British Bombing Survey Unit (the British version of the USSBS) gives the following figure for man-months per 1,000 lbs of bombs dropped:
Lancaster - 9.5
Mosquito - 16
Halifax - 27
Wellington - 27.5
Stirling - 38
I've been wondering why I've never found a link to that - heheheh, 60 bucks needed. Good review here:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/cox.html
Nashwan, do you have a copy? I'd like to know if that calculation was made after the end of hostilities - I'm assuming it was. If so, the economics (lack of a better word) change radically when compared to those of Autum '43 or Spring '44. The switch away from targets in the Reich immediately reduced loss rates and increased loads dropped by the heavies.
Using the figures in Max Hastings' book, the overall loss rate for Bomber Command from the start of the war (admittedly, this includes the early sorties by Hampdens and the like) stood by my reckoning at 4.2% (FTR and crashed on return). By May 1945, the figure, again calculated from the start of the war, stood at 2.7%, and benefitted from the increased Mosquito sorties.
My point is, the calculation made in hindsight is radically different from that made during the war.
-
It's already said above that the mossie flying by the night and with oboe, had an equal if not better accuracy than a daylight bomber with optical sights.
Oboe was also severely limited in the number of aircraft it could handle. If you're for a large-scale precision campaign, you're going to have to do better than Oboe.
-
Wasn't Oboe used by the Pathfinders to mark the target?
How don't know how accurate this site is for Lanc losses.
http://www.bomber-command.info/LancRaidLoss.htm
There was another site that had BC war losses by the month but looks like it is gone now.
-
A pair of stations guiding via OBOE could only handle one aircraft at a time. OBOE was useless beyond 250 miles so Harris would never have been able to hit Dresden or Berlin or indeed Manhiem, Stuttgart, Frankfurt or Munich. Hamberg would have been at an extreme range.
OBOE was limited to Duisberg, Dusseldorf, Essen and Koln as far as key industrial targets were concerned.
Even the later G EHH was limited to less than 100 bombers. Hence without bomb aimers 5000 Mossie raids would have been far less accurate than the Lancasters with bomb aimers.
Hence a massive terrorising Mossie bomber force would have used OBOE and its ilk just as the Lancasters did. To mark a target with flares for bomb aimers to aim at.
Given all this and certainly given the failure of Harris's strategm (the Riechs most productive year of war production was 1944) I am very much an admirer of the Mosquito. It is engineered using the basest of materials to produce an aircraft that excelled in its field meeting its objectives admirably whilst being able to carry forward development to improve without the core effort becoming redundant.
Had tactical bombing been bomber command strategm then the Mossie would have been a prime mover, given of course that intelligence could provide it with sufficient targets.
-
Ok I will say it clearly. Yes; Harris, to achieve its criminal objective of killing as many german civilians as possible, needed a big force of Lancasters ,not mossies.
Criminal... :lol
-
Well rram not that I agree with mass murder on epic proportions the Germans did bomb some of our cities to rubble killing innocent civilians (not as many). Plus our population didnt go along with gassing millions of Jews even if they didnt know about it (yeah right).
See Coventry or Portsmouth or the docklands.
Paybacks a squeak and total war is hell.
-
Oh here we go, to the criminal bombings again.
OK, I'll bring in what I belive to be the mindset.
The big bomber barons on ALL sides believed in total victory being available with a raid or series of them, devastating enough.
They were both right and wrong. Holland buckled after Rotterdam, Poland buckled after warshaw. Then the LW tried to buckle the British by flattening London, but that did not work. And Japan buckled in 2 flashes, so you see the theory was still in use late in 1945...
The allied started giving proper paybacks a while after London, - that with the same thougt. It didn't work but they came closer than they knew.
In WW2 the British lived with one heavy cross to bear, - their intelligence through Enigma/Ultra.
They knew quite a bit what the Gerries were up to, so Gerry didn't exactly buy much symphaty there. And Gerry fought on well beyond any reason, no doubt there.
I do not know the exact casualties of the bombings, but the highest numbers I have seen are close to the million. It normally swings between 300.000 and 1 million. Bad bad, but very small in comparison with..some other numbers.
So in short, well into 1944 or early in 1945, there was no mean not to be tried to kill the baaad enemy. No mercy, - but some leaders did get concerned though.
BTW I have a painting of Dreden in my living room, my wifes grandparents escaped from there right before the bombings, and I have been there,,,and to Coventry, and to Warshaw, and to Birkenau, and to Dachau..... Sort of stands closer to me than you'd think.
Then back to the Mossie.
I think it was shown here that it would have been able to haul bombs more efficiently than the Lannie, as well as being equally accurate at short range, and---the glass nosed one did have a bombsight?
Bear in mind also, that it could possibly have bombed from a less altitude due to it's speed and weak radar signal, and, as it did in RL, sometimes at day.
I'd pick a double fleet of them over the Lannies...I think...
-
Oh, BTW, I spotted february 1942 as a timezone where the RAF abandoned strategic bombing in favour of area bombing.
Well, they carried on with strategic bombing as well, but this was later than I thought. After all, they had to suffer urban area bombing as soon as almost 2 years before.
-
Scherf, Tilt.
Yes, Oboe had limitations in the number of aircraft it could guide to a target, and in the distance of the target to be selected. But against precision targets, pathfinding was still useful (and in fact used quite some times by mossie's night bombing operations against precision targets in belgium) so in fact the number of aircraft limitation meant little. And for long range operations Gee still could be used, and H2S could still be used. Both systems when used in close operation worked very well for accurate bombings. I insist, that RAF had to resort to area bombings until late 1942 was a fact, for it had no other means of doing damage to Germany. But since then, there were enough tools to revert to precision bombings instead of the massive area attacks that happened up to VE day.
Well rram not that I agree with mass murder on epic proportions the Germans did bomb some of our cities to rubble killing innocent civilians (not as many). Plus our population didnt go along with gassing millions of Jews even if they didnt know about it (yeah right).
See Coventry or Portsmouth or the docklands.
Paybacks a itch and total war is hell.
The old excuse of "as they did it with us, we shall do the same to them" is not legitim. There are certain limits no decent human (and no criminal) should ever trespass, even in times of war. Harris' area bombing offensive was unsucessful as a whole, needlessy bloody for german civilians (because there was the option to attack production centers instead of cities) and for his own aircrews, and all in all a show of war crimes.
You talk about mass murders done by german bombings on other cities (Amongs them, british ones) as an excuse for the later british area bombings over germany. I'll answer that Göring was sentenced to death because (between many other reasons, but this one was enough to send him to death) of his orders of doing area bombing on enemy cities.
The two standard here is clear: Göring deserved death because he bombed british cities and civilians, but Harris did not because he bombed German cities and civilians. Göring was a criminal for actions such as Coventry. Harris is a knight of the British Empire for actions such as Hamburg. Does this not ring some "Unfairness" bell on someone?.
The part concerning the Jews and the holocaust is so well out of the scope of this debate that I don't understand the reason why you mention it. Maybe because as some germans gassed and murdered innocent jews, the allies should've also gassed and murdered innocent germans?. Killing civilians in bomber-induced firestorms was right because some germans criminals gassed innocents in extermination camps?...I insist, don't understand the reasoning behind mentioning the holocaust in this debate.
Angus:
Then the LW tried to buckle the British by flattening London, but that did not work. And Japan buckled in 2 flashes, so you see the theory was still in use late in 1945...
About Japan I dislike what happened there but we have a problem here. German civilian homes and beings were not a legit war target because they, as themselfs, were not a part of the german war efort. Sure, some of them were just factory manpower (and by late war, not even that as slave labor was very much extended in german factories)...but most of them (not all civilians worked in a factory, by far) were just old people, women (who never were used as labourers in german war industry), children, disabled people, etc. Bombing them was bombing no-war targets, something I think everyone will agree WAS a crime no matter who dropped the bomb, an american, a british or a german.
IN the japanese case the things were much more diferent. A lot of manufacturing was done at the own japanese homes, and women, old people, even children were extensively used as workers in those conditions and their production was a noticeable % of the total Japanese war production.
Japanese civilians, homes, towns and cities,so, were integral part of the Japanese war production, unlike in Germany. Bombing a japanese city was the equivalent of bombing a factory. SO the area bombings over Japan were terrible, but as horrible as it might sound, they were legitim because were conducted over civilians and their homes...but those civilians and homes were important japanese war production centers.
In this same direction I'll say that,for me, all the british bombings over german cities until tools as H2S, or the bombing/navigation aid systems were available, can't be qualified as criminal. The British were at war with Germany. Bomber Command was a numerous offensive force that had to be used somehow. At the time it could be used only one way: bombing area targets by night over Germany.
The problem starts when the option existed of using working systems for precision bombing at night that would guarantee results while killing as little innocents as possible. Before that moment RAF had no option, and a war to wage. After that, RAF HAD an option to stop killing civilians, yet they went on to turn most german cities to rubble and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents while doing so.
Until early 1943 I can't qualify british area bombing as a crime; they had no option and a war to wage. From 1943 onwards it's a whole different matter. And the main responsible of this insistence in murdering innocent german civilians in mass scale was "Bomber" Harris. A war criminal under any possible light one can put him under.
-
Point of order:
Goering's death sentence was because HE'S the one who came up with the "Final Solution" regarding the Jews.
-
Mossies could carry the 4000lb cookie though maybe not to Berlin (but maybe could have been modified), a crew of only 2
Yes, to Berlin, but...
had vastly superior surviveability,
Not with 4000 lb bombload.
could get to Berlin and back twice as fastr as a sterling.
Not with 4000 lb bombload.
And where do you get the resources, men and engines to build such a light bomber force?
Mossie was a niche aircraft that was very useful in many roles, but a strategic bomber it was not.
-
RRAM:
"I insist, that RAF had to resort to area bombings until late 1942 was a fact, for it had no other means of doing damage to Germany. But since then, there were enough tools to revert to precision bombings instead of the massive area attacks that happened up to VE day."
The British started in feb '42, which means they spent the most of 2-3 years NOT area bombing. Now I insist that the theory of terror bombing (or dehousing as some said) as a tool for enemy surrender was however in use at the time, before, during and after.
2 Years of strategic bombing showed little success, so it was shifted, but do not mislead people, it was not abandoned, - and some of the finest strategic bombing exaples by the RAF were executed AFTER the switch.
As for the Holocaust issue drawing into this, wasn't that me or did someone pull that one in before? Anyway, the point was that the British high command knew of many of the German attrocities in the east for instance as well as the information they had from the USSR. There was simply no more sympathy left for the Germans at the time. Bear in mind that when the decision of bombing Dresden got solid for instance, Birkenau had been captured by the USSR...already 2 weeks before Dresden.
The foe unveils his true doings = no mercy at all. Stop this at all cost....so to say.
A tad more on Dresden...as being picked as a target:
"The USAF report also states that two of Dresden's traffic routes were of military importance: north-south from Germany to Czechoslovakia, and east-west along the central European uplands.[22] The city was at the junction of the Berlin-Prague-Vienna railway line, as well as Munich-Breslau, and Hamburg-Leipzig.[22] Colonel Harold E. Cook, an American POW held in the Friedrichstadt marshaling yard the night before the attacks, later said that "I saw with my own eyes that Dresden was an armed camp: thousands of German troops, tanks and artillery and miles of freight cars loaded with supplies supporting and transporting German logistics towards the east to meet the Russians."[23]
"
(Wiki)
-
Point of order:
Goering's death sentence was because HE'S the one who came up with the "Final Solution" regarding the Jews.
This is not true. His actions against the Jews, expoliation of occupied territories, etc were charges he was found guilty of. But, he was also found guilty of commanding an air force. The Nazis trialled at Nüremberg were charged with an indictment of four counts. Göring was found guilty of all four, and was hanged because all them four.
PLease note the parts I highlight:
(Part of count One)
1. Beginning with the initiation of the aggressive war on 1 September 1939, and throughout its extension into wars involving almost the entire world, the Nazi conspirators carried out their common plan or conspiracy to wage war in ruthless and complete disregard and violation of the laws and customs of war. In the course of executing the common plan or conspiracy there were committed the War Crimes detailed hereinafter in Count Three of this Indictment.
The bombings of cities by the luftwaffe were used during the trial, Göring was asked about them, and they were part of the reason Göring was found guilty of Count One, and so, they were part of the reasons why Göring was sentenced to death. I don't seem to recall Harris being trialled, much less being found guilty (which he was), of this same charge. Here lies the problem I was mentioning avobe. If Göring was a criminal because the bombings of Rotterdam, Coventry, London, and many more (and he was found guilty of war crimes because of it, so conducting area bombings on cities targetting civilians WAS a crime according to Nüremberg), then Harris was equally criminal in that regard (of course not on the dozens of other charges Göring was found guilty of).
Of course, there were many more reasons to hang Göring, but one of them was the use of the luftwaffe during WWII.
And BTW there were more instances of this same issue. Go read why Dönitz was sentenced for prison. Compare Dönitz decisions as commander of the U-boote and Kriegsmarine with those taken by people as Adm. Lockwood. Basically Dönitz was trialled and imprisoned for 10 years because he gave the order to sink allied merchant ships (he wasn't found guilty of any other crime). One has to wonder what did Lockwood's submarines do in the Pacific...and again, one was sent to jail for a long time, the other enjoyed fame,recognitiion and success for the rest of his life.
Vae Victis, seems Caesar said once. And he was right...to some extreme. I don't disagree with Nüremberg sentences. At all. And if I am sad about anything is that Göring escaped the rope, for he rightly deserved it. But still I find it extraordinary that while some military commands were found guilty of some charges related with the way of waging a war, the equal military commanders in the Allied side guilty of similar charges were never trialled.
And a bit off-topic, I've always found amusing that part of the Count One charges were related with waging wars of agression on France and England, when they were the ones declaring war on Germany in the first place. Not saying that they did wrong (they should've done it in 1938), I just find it curious that Germany was accused of declaring a war of agression on two nations who declared war on Germany itself :lol
Angus:
I can understand the point of "the germans were known to committ atrocities in the East, the extermination camps, etc"...by early 1945.
I don't think anyone in Britain ever had the slightest suspect on what was going on in Auswitch by mid-1943...the time of the Hamburg week long bombings which costed more than 40.000 lifes, and more than three times that numbers in injured.
It's not a valid argument. And it isn't even with the holocaust horror in the western allies' minds (I insist that the "they are worse" argument holds no legitimacy from my point of view). But for all those area bombings prior to the discovery of the horrors of the holocaust, its' even less an argument.
-
I see the thread has "jumped the shark" ;)
-
It is always nice to see all the blame put on RAF BC when the Americans did the same. :eek: In fact, late war British bombing was more accurate (better CEP) than American 8th & 15th AF bombing. American precision bombing was a joke. Early American bomber formations could be 2400 feet across and late war bombing formations were 1200 feet across and all a/c dropped on the lead bomber's drop.
At Dresden, the Americans bombers were to be the 1st of 4 raids over the target but because of bad weather the mission was cancelled. The 3rd mission, an American, was not and this raid carried ~40% incendiaries..
Operation Punishment was the code name for the German bombing of Belgrade during the invasion of Yugoslavia. The Luftwaffe bombed the city on April 6 (Palm Sunday) without a declaration of war, continuing bombing until April 10. More than 500 bombing sorties were flown against Belgrade in three waves coming from Romania where German forces were assembled for the attack on the Soviet Union.
German Field Marshal von Kleist said during his trial after the war: "The air raid on Belgrade in 1941 had primarily political-terrorist character and had nothing to do with the war. That air bombing was matter of Hitler's vanity, his personal revenge." The bombing without a declaration of war become one of the prosecution's charges which led to the execution of the commander of the Luftwaffe formations involved, General Löhr.
Now if one wants to be a bleeding heart, the German V-1s and V-2s were terror attacks a there was little or no warning.
Saxman, GB and France declared war on German because of the attack on Poland. There was treaty obligations to be met.
-
RRAM:
"I don't think anyone in Britain ever had the slightest suspect on what was going on in Auswitch by mid-1943...the time of the Hamburg week long bombings which costed more than 40.000 lifes, and more than three times that numbers in injured.
It's not a valid argument. And it isn't even with the holocaust horror in the western allies' minds (I insist that the "they are worse" argument holds no legitimacy from my point of view). But for all those area bombings prior to the discovery of the horrors of the holocaust, its' even less an argument."
You can think what you want, but they were aware of mass executions at least from the autumn of 1939.
The very knowledge of what Nazi Germany was about was sometimes more available to the British than the bulk of German people, and definately played a big role in Britain NOT being game to Hitler's "Appeal to Reason" in July 1940.
And Birkenau was not the only camp....nor a source of information as an only thing. Actually the actual things discovered by the Russians when they caught it shocked even the British. They knew it was bad, and the mess was all over, just not THAT bad.
YOu know, when you're fighting a bully, and find out that he is much worse than you thought, well, you land your punches where they hurt the most, - or just anywhere, you want the creep down.
-
I'd like to know if that calculation was made after the end of hostilities - I'm assuming it was. If so, the economics (lack of a better word) change radically when compared to those of Autum '43 or Spring '44.
It's definitely post war, it includes a table showing the tons dropped by type per year, up to and including 1945.
Using the figures in Max Hastings' book, the overall loss rate for Bomber Command from the start of the war (admittedly, this includes the early sorties by Hampdens and the like) stood by my reckoning at 4.2% (FTR and crashed on return). By May 1945, the figure, again calculated from the start of the war, stood at 2.7%, and benefitted from the increased Mosquito sorties.
I think the problem with any accounting is that late war was much easier than early and mid war, for all types, and that the offensive was so heavily weighted to late war. Bomber Command dropped half it's bombs after August or September 1944.
This is not true. His actions against the Jews, expoliation of occupied territories, etc were charges he was found guilty of. But, he was also found guilty of commanding an air force.
Only in connection with planning an aggressive war. He was found guilty for planning to use his airforce to attack neutral countries, not for actually using it to bomb ones Germany was at war with.
If Göring was a criminal because the bombings of Rotterdam, Coventry, London, and many more (and he was found guilty of war crimes because of it, so conducting area bombings on cities targetting civilians WAS a crime according to Nüremberg),
I don't seem to recall Harris being trialled, much less being found guilty (which he was), of this same charge.
Harris was not in the same situation as Goering. Sperrle or Kesselring are much closer in situation to Harris, being air commanders who carried out bombing of cities.
Kesselring and Sperrle who killed 50,000+ British civilians between them were not charged for bombing, either. Kesselring was charged over the murder of hostages he had taken in Italy, Sperrle was charged (and acquitted) of using prisoners of war for prohibited labour and using slave labour,
-
I think its great the way these debates develop through the interpretation of competing facts mixed mixed reasoned opinions. It is apparent that people form moral positions on the basis of limited knowledge and I dont conemn them for that but at the same time it is always a good idea to keep at least something of an open mind.
I personally think Harris was acting with the best of intentions but like so many people who get into a position of power he was driven by a certain amount of blinkered fanatacism. We should also remember that people of Harris's generation were traumaticied by the experience of the first world war's wholesale slaughter with no end in sight on a relatively static battlefiled. A true war of attrition. Harris would have countenaced almost anything that would bring a swift conclussion and in the process save lives.
Remeber the country which suffered most in WW2 was Poland in a per capita sense and Soviet cassualties were at least 4x those of the Germans.
Anyone who judges Harris a war criminal is opperating out of context. I believe Harris was tragically mistaken at worst.
-
Some of the heads on this thread have much better and wider knowledge than just limited.
As for the Polish, yes they had the beating. Warshaw was the most mauled and destroyed city of WW2 by the way!
As for the Russian casualties, they were horrendous. Some 22 millions? Much more than the Germans lost, however...a much bigger nation.
And to Harris:
"We should also remember that people of Harris's generation were traumaticied by the experience of the first world war's wholesale slaughter with no end in sight on a relatively static battlefiled. A true war of attrition. Harris would have countenaced almost anything that would bring a swift conclussion and in the process save lives."
I'd settle for that. Which brings me again to my point on the status of the war when the real bombing goes off. Per day, the bombing victims are...:
1. All from the enemy...i.e. German.
2. Numberwise, a joke compared to the whole deal.
So, - exactly that for the bomber-guys mindset. Use any mean possible to end this crap, and especially with mr. nasty on the receiving end.
-
Scherf, Tilt.
Yes, Oboe had limitations in the number of aircraft it could guide to a target, and in the distance of the target to be selected. But against precision targets, pathfinding was still useful (and in fact used quite some times by mossie's night bombing operations against precision targets in belgium) so in fact the number of aircraft limitation meant little. And for long range operations Gee still could be used, and H2S could still be used. Both systems when used in close operation worked very well for accurate bombings.
In fact, the aircraft limitation meant everything with Oboe. You complain about German civilian casualties - Oboe would have done nothing to prevent them beyond the Ruhr. Any civilan casualties within the Ruhr past March '43 also would have been down to Oooe. Truly, you would have expected the RAF to put 6 aircraft per hour over Krupps as a total effort?
Gee could NOT be used as a bombing aid. It was used as such and failed miserably - see "Pathfinder Force, A History of 8 Group" for details. Further, H2S could tell you when there was a city below, assuming there were sufficient waterways, coastlines etc. to provide contrast. It could NOT pick out individual factories or other targets. See the same book (or any other one on the subject, for that matter) for the kind of ground picture the system produced.
From March '43 pathfinding (route marking, target illumination, target marking etc) was the norm. All the civilian casualties you complain about resulted from raids in which 8 Group or 5 Group were pathfinding and marking targets. So let's not equate pathfinding with precision raids.
God, what else in this thread is bollocks? Mossies to Berlin - yes, they carried 4,000 lb-ers there, the numbers have already been posted. Yes, they did so with greater survivability - between January 1 1945 and the end of the war 3,900 Mosquito sorties were dispatched to Berlin. 3,695 of those aircraft attacked, 14 failed to return ("Mosquito", Sharp & Bowyer). Someone else can post figures for the heavies in the Battle of Berlin, I'm going to eat breakfast.
Can we get the subject away from Harris and back to RAF policy decisions around the Mosquito? I'm really, really hoping that other book has got something to say, since judging from the table of contents and the index shown on Amazon, it ranges far and wide across WWII.
-
Well, the air ministry's initial policy about the Mossie was suspicion, so the aircraft was designed, built flown and tested up to their standard as a private effort :salute
-
Can we get the subject away from Harris and back to RAF policy decisions around the Mosquito? I'm really, really hoping that other book has got something to say, since judging from the table of contents and the index shown on Amazon, it ranges far and wide across WWII.
I would say based on the information and evidence provided so far that the Mosquito was vastly underestimated and utilised in the precision role which itself was underutilised and I am not convinced that it would not have performed better than the lanc as an area bomber.
Because of the fear generated by the apallingly low surviveability of heavy bomber crews allot of creep back was obseved in area bombing where crews released early percieving this to be the period of greatest danger hence lower accuracy. Additionally sorties aborted earlywere particularly chronic where squaddrons went for long periods without a crew surviviving a tour.
Lancs certainly couldnt carry a full load to Berlin I think max about 10,000 lbs and by 1944 Halifax's were carrying incendiaries only to help redress their poor performance. The idea of area bombing was to overwhelm a target in one go e.g. fire fighting services etc overwhelmed fires burning out of control.
Two surviveable accurate Mossies for each Lanc or Halifax makes more sense and they would still be around to come back tommorow and the next day and the next. With shorter flight times they could area bomb for more of the year as shorter nights would be less of a problem.
-
This may serve you:
"The right of the line"
John Terraine
Wordsworth Military Library
ISBN: 978-1853266836
Right. So, I've got the book in front of me.
Now, you're going to tell me where it discusses policy around the Mossie, and where it explains how "Harris wouldn't have it." Because I can find no such reference.
-
.
Right. So, I've got the book in front of me.
Now, you're going to tell me where it discusses policy around the Mossie, and where it explains how "Harris wouldn't have it." Because I can find no such reference.
There are no judgements in the book, just facts. There are no pages treating what people DID NOT DO...but there are a lot about what people actually did.
There are quite some passages pointing about Harris' insistance in attacking with massive bomber raids on german cities, not on the mossie. The book won't say "Harris didn't want the mossie", but it clearly points out that Harris wanted the largest formation of the largest bombers Britain could give to conduct his bombings. The Mossie was seen as a pathfinder, as a good plane for small raids, even while it had the potential to be quite more than that.
As such Harris never gave a thought about increasing its production at the cost of the bombers. Neither he would've had it witha sustitution of the Lancaster by the Mossie. Yes, the book doesn't say "Harris said no to substituting lancasters by mosquitoes" But it's implicit for anyone reading the narration that what Harris wanted wasnt at all a fleet of mosquitoes and that had a proposal been raised for that purpose, he would've turned it down.
About the parts of the message you asked reference for, about Harris' fixation about area bombing, saturation attacks, and his almost resignation when Bomber Command was forced to cooperate in Overlord preparatives (which involved quite a deal of precision bombigns), the book tells the whole story.
You asked me for a reference, I gave you that book. Read the whole strategic campaign parts (the book chapters are ordered by time, so you might have to jump between chapters to keep the whole bomber command history as is told by it). If when you're done reading it you don't share my impressions then we're reading different books.
Bit pressed of time right now to comment more, but will do later when back at home. I'ts been a while since I last read the book and would need to have it near to quote passages, pages ,etc.
BTW I also encourage some ppl here to read R.V. Jones' "most secret war". Gives quite a picture of what the british could hit and could not by night, and with how much precision.
-
So, in short, you've attributed to Harris decisions which you cannot demonstrate he took. When asked for a source, you cite a book which does not even touch the subject. Further, you've attributed to Gee, H2S and Oboe attributes which were demonstrably beyond their capacity.
-
So, in short, you've attributed to Harris decisions which you cannot demonstrate he took. When asked for a source, you cite a book which does not even touch the subject. Further, you've attributed to Gee, H2S and Oboe attributes which were demonstrably beyond their capacity.
Could you be more specific? especially in relation to the former.
-
I think the point was that Harris thought Lancs were the best tool to achieve the area bombing he wanted.
We may or may not agree with him or his strategm but history records both his objective and his considered choice of aircraft.
-
I think the point was that Harris thought Lancs were the best tool to achieve the area bombing he wanted.
We may or may not agree with him or his strategm but history records both his objective and his considered choice of aircraft.
Agreed though it doesnt add much to the debate.
-
So, in short, you've attributed to Harris decisions which you cannot demonstrate he took.
Please, list those decisions I've attributed to him which I cannot demonstrate he took, with the book I named as a source.
I can demostrate why he didn't take some decisions, too. The book does a nice job in summing up how Harris thought and acted with Bomber Command all through the war. How he did insist in certain issues strongly. And that's enough to know he would've opposed certain measures with all his strenght because he didn't believe in them. Precision bombing was one of those (and the book covers it). Changing the main bomber of the Command from the Lancaster to the Mossie was other (the book doesn't say so, because it was never proposed. But with what you read in the book is plain to see he would've had opposed any proposal like that, had it happened)
When asked for a source, you cite a book which does not even touch the subject. Further, you've attributed to Gee, H2S and Oboe attributes which were demonstrably beyond their capacity.
I'll talk about later of that with more detail. But short version: Using Gee as navigation aid and H2S to pinpoint bombing locations, the british were able to carry on very accurate bombings by night without Oboe. And when Oboe was used, Pathfinding principles were usable even if just the first few mossies carried the system on board. There were instances of this of Mossie night attacks vs Belgium. To enter more deeply into it I would need some books I have not here nor at home right now (they are at my parent's house), so I can just talk about them but without listing exactly page and paragraph of the books I'm basing on.
anyway, please list the decisions I say harris took that aren't covered by the book.
About the MOssie I said Harris would've never accepted the substitution of the Lancaster by the Mossie as main bomber, and that's plain to see if you've read the book ,as even when it doesn't explicitly say it, it's implicit in the way Harris thought and acted with Bomber Command.
-
It seems that the fact remains Harris did not explicitly make a decision not to adopt the Mosquito. As I have argued earlier his thinking was fairly short term working with the tools he already had at his disposal, Was it Harris who proposed a 4000 strong force and if so what was the projected time frame.
I suspect high loss rates were experienced as a result of deep penetrationby which time the battle was already in full swing so to speak. I think in other words it is correct to say Harris never had the information at his disposal at a time when he could have made a meaningfull decision.
In hindsight my question is would Mossies have been better in all roles and I have seen no evidence that proves they would not have been.
This was the original proposition.
-
All this is ridiculous. The highest German military leaders were tried and sentenced for their complicity in starting a war of conquest which eventually led to Tens of millions being killed on all sides. I will add that the top German commanders, as well as the entire German people, would have happily goosestepped along with their Fuhrer if they had kept winning. Happily sharing in the spoils of conquest. It wasnt until they started losing that Nazis became much harder to find. :lol While they were winning they were all over the place.
Fatso, as 2nd in command, signed the order implementing the final solution of the so called Jewish problem. None of which was a secret from the Allies. Both Churchill and Roosevelt knew about it almost from the start but both refused to bomb the death camps cause the Germans let it be known they would execute captured allied air men and soldiers if the death camps were bombed.
Besides we knew bombing the camps would do nothing to end the war sooner. Those bombs would be better spent being dropped on German industry or population centers which housed the workers for German industry.
As for the Jews I think what happened to them was the worst kept secret in Germany during the war. And it wasnt just the Jews but it was all the ones deemed undesirable by the euphemism loving Nazis.
Ive always believed the German cities were legitimate targets. Yes killing woman and kids is horrible but it didn't mean much to a German leadership far more interested in preserving its own survival. And it was this same leadership that was responsible for those bombs falling, not the allied bomber command.
-
And of course you can document your claims Rich46yo?
Of course you can't, it's just inane babble!
-
In hindsight my question is would Mossies have been better in all roles and I have seen no evidence that proves they would not have been.
This was the original proposition.
...and not ?
Why didnt bomber command drop the heavies altogether in favour of mass mossie atacks.
But the answer to your 2nd question is above. The Mossie could have performed much that the lancaster was asked to carry out. Further it could have done so with fewer net losses.
There were some interesting challenges to overcome to gear production upto the figures required.
In the UK it was (mainly) the Automotive and electro mechanical industries that upgraded their training to meet the needs of increased aircraft production. Skills whilst different were transferable.
Yet the Mossie was a laminated monocoque construction based upon woods and resins. This was actually closer to furniture based engineering. A similar problem befell early Lagg production in Russia. The materials and techniques were basically foreign to the mass production aircraft industry of the day.
It would have become one of the most produced aircraft in the war to achieve the same effect.......... Over 5000 lancs and halibags were produced to maintain the bomber force required of the RAF (and they wanted more).
Given the average bomb load ratio was one of 1:5 then based upon like for like survivability 25,000 Mossies would have to be produced. Given a 20 % increase in survivability then (with a ratio of now 1:4) we would still have required a total production of approaching 20,000. Even if we think these figures do the Mossie a disservice a final ratio of 1:3 gives the same total overal production requirement as met by the the IL2M3!
If I read Sharp & Bowyers version of the production evolution from Hatfield to Leavsden and then on, its clear that de Havilland was forced into such a high level of subcontracting that Mossie production became (famously although it should have been infamously) a cottage industry. He could not keep up with the orders he recieved from the air ministry!! Never mind a 3 to 4 fold increase.
To up gear this was beyond the capability of de Havilland although I am sure that if someone like Beavorbrook had determined that it should increase then de Havilland would have been pushed aside to allow Nuffield or some other organistaion to take over.
We should not dismiss the issue of pilots either. When Harris wanted 1000 bombers he was short of 400 trained pilots. He had to take reserve occupation pilots out of rear fields and go beg the fleet air arm for theirs. Of course later he had the benefit of canadian squadrons filling his ranks but even so from the above we note that Mossies would have required a training regime of some 3 to 4 times the number Harris needed for his Lancs.
-
Man this is the first time I agree with rich46yo, Bombing the cities is the worst they could've done but you have to replace it in the context, and I think none of us can realize what it was to face the nazis, except the ones that were actually there.
We now know that the allies won the war, but the allies didn't know at that time. This is kindof stupid to say but that had to do EVERYTHING they could to win it, whatever the cost.
-
The age old cry of the war criminal. And fascism wasn't defeated ... it wasn't even a goal.
-
The age old cry of the war criminal. And fascism wasn't defeated ... it wasn't even a goal.
Your argument is essentially the ends did not justify the means. I think this proposition only stands up if you have confidence in final victory. Furthermore you dont seem to be able to get into the whole "you have to be able to kill people in order to save lives sometimes"
2 Things 1) British Bombing of civilians was not an end in itself. 2)The genocide of the Jews, Homosexuals, Mentally Ill/dissabled , Gypsies, Communists etc was.
Lumpy do you understand the difference?
What would have happened if Nazi germany had won?
Do you understand why people who consistently take the moral high ground and wont dirty their consciences with real decisions in an imperfect world with imperfect information dont get into power?
I think its cos the Nazi's of this world kill them and take over.
In many ways the likes of Harris if we could see inside his mind may be of the highest moral character.
-
...and not ?
It would have become one of the most produced aircraft in the war to achieve the same effect.......... Over 5000 lancs and halibags were produced to maintain the bomber force required of the RAF (and they wanted more).
Based on my figures and understanding I would replace 5000 Lancs and Halibags over the long term with around 7500 mossies and around half as many pilots as required for the heavies.
Simply put: 2 Mossies over berlin carry more accurate ord than a Lanc and considerably more than a Halibag. They have about 3-4 times the surviveability and can bomb I would estimate for twice as much orf the year.
Thts the answer on area bombing unless I have misinterpreted the figures
-
The Americans should have produced the Mossie instead of the B-17/B-24, at least for the ETO/MTO theater. There was already a heavy lift capacity with the British heavies for the times when a heavy bomb load was required.
-
The age old cry of the war criminal. And fascism wasn't defeated ... it wasn't even a goal.
Now there, (While Rich46yo has some mistakes in his park), I disagree. Fighting fascism was probably the heaviest factor involved in the UK's decision to give little Hitler the long finger upwards when he made open his "appeal to reason" in 1940. So, in short, the Brits put their bets on that there would no peace WITH the wicked....at least in the long run.
Another book for your list, would be Martin Gilbert's WW2. But it's not a pleasant read. However puts ones feet on the ground.
(Keegan's Second World war is for the ones looking at the phases and the strategics, I highly recommend it, and I think they even use it as teaching material at Sandhurst)
And Tilt, - how do you end up at +20K mossies to match the Lannies and Halibutts? I sensed from the promoted data that due to more speed and lower losses, each one of them would have ended up by hauling more in their lifetime, - well, a little more calculus maybe, but you'd have to bring in the factor of a lot more lifetime right?
As for the production capability, the Spitfire was at it's time, a "first" of a new line, the old rigging was the standard (like the Hurricane) and yet the production went to 20.000. And it was made of material much less available than what the Mossie was made off. Actually, I would almost bet that the mossie was made out of wood for 2 reasons, one being DeHavilland's belief in it, and second being that both the crafts and material were amply available. And it was a private start, - the performance of the prototype simply defeated the stiffnecks at the air ministry with a checkmate!
-
The Americans should have produced the Mossie instead of the B-17/B-24, at least for the ETO/MTO theater. There was already a heavy lift capacity with the British heavies for the times when a heavy bomb load was required.
My old friend who flew both Spitfires and then P51's and ended up doing escorts over Berlin (Escorting England based B-17's) had an opinion on that. RIDICULOUS. He said that they had to lob about for 6 hours at great altitude for dropping a weight of 2-4K per B17, because they were full of guns and ammo and people and so on.
He said the escorts alone, being jabos in the first place could have done the job twice over with even more accuracy, and in case intercepted, jettison and tackle with the inbounds.
As for Mossies, his remark was "simply amazing", "almost untouchable" and "outrunning us".
Anyway, good point!
-
And of course you can document your claims Rich46yo?
Of course you can't, it's just inane babble!
There he goes again. Boy I wish there was an ignore feature in this forum still. Im getting tired of some of these one liner heros.
-
That would be a "no" then Rich46yo. As I suspected.
-
Now there, (While Rich46yo has some mistakes in his park), I disagree. Fighting fascism was probably the heaviest factor involved in the UK's decision to give little Hitler the long finger upwards when he made open his "appeal to reason" in 1940. So, in short, the Brits put their bets on that there would no peace WITH the wicked....at least in the long run.
If fighting fascism was the "heaviest factor" involved in the UK's decision to go to war then why did they not finish the job? Spain was a fascist dictatorship until General Fancisco Franco's death in 1975, and was a passive ally to Germany in WWII. Fascist Spain was allowed to enter the UN in 1955, and the United States even entered into a military and trade alliance with a FASCIST nation in 1953. President Eisenhower personally went to Madrid to sign the "Pact of Madrid". Then there is Argentine and Chile ... both fascist dictatorships; one of which would later go to war on Britain over the Falkland Islands.
Your argument is essentially the ends did not justify the means.
The end does not always justify the means. I feel sorry for anyone who do not understand this.
What would have happened if Nazi germany had won?
Who knows? Perhaps the same as what happened with Spain?
-
That would be a "no" then Rich46yo. As I suspected.
Its fair to say that every statement not supported by evidence is opinion but its true also that the sources being quoted are being heavily interpreted.
Lets avoid degenerating to the level of this dysfunctional couple whos arguments all end in arguments about argueing.
-
Yes mother. ;)
-
Tell me gScholtz, what design on world conquest did Franco or the other fascist states you mention have?
-
Lumpy your positions involve some logic but are meaningless in the context of the real world. Agreed a war against Facism in absolute terms in the light of events and history is irreconcileable with the facts but based on the combined evidence ww2 stands out as one of the trully just conflicts.
You can point to isolated inconsitencies but Iam affraid it takes wisdom more than just logic to interpret history meaningfully.
I would like to say Britain and France's decision to declare war on Germany in defence of Poland towers abve all else in terms of moral courage.
-
Yes mother. ;)
I am affraid you probably do need the patient tolerance of a parent to bring you up to speed on some of the issues you have raised. I dont imagine anyone else would have the time.
-
Tell me gScholtz, what design on world conquest did Franco or the other fascist states you mention have?
Thank you for supporting my argument that Germany being fascist wasn't the reason the UK went to war on Germany. Nor was "defeating fascism" a goal of the western allies during WWII (or after for that matter).
-
Lumpy your positions involve some logic but are meaningless in the context of the real world. Agreed a war against Facism in absolute terms in the light of events and history is irreconcileable with the facts but based on the combined evidence ww2 stands out as one of the trully just conflicts.
You can point to isolated inconsitencies but Iam affraid it takes wisdom more than just logic to interpret history meaningfully.
I would like to say Britain and France's decision to declare war on Germany in defence of Poland towers abve all else in terms of moral courage.
When did I ever say that WWII and the fight against Germany wasn't a just conflict? Please don't put words in my mouth. And I must also thank you for supporting my argument.
-
I am affraid you probably do need the patient tolerance of a parent to bring you up to speed on some of the issues you have raised. I dont imagine anyone else would have the time.
Awww ... You've had a Humorectomy. :)
-
Who knows? Perhaps the same as what happened with Spain?
This is where you completely lost it.
-
Awww ... You've had a Humorectomy. :)
Please Lumpy tell me do you really think you are funny?
Does anyone else on here think there is anything funny about Lumpy?
-
Thank you for supporting my argument that Germany being fascist wasn't the reason the UK went to war on Germany. Nor was "defeating fascism" a goal of the western allies during WWII (or after for that matter).
Agh? :rolleyes:
-
Please Lumpy tell me do you really think you are funny?
Does anyone else on here think there is anything funny about Lumpy?
There's something sad about him.
-
This thread is about the Mosquito. Let's not continue to hijack this thread.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,233787.0.html
-
This thread is about the Mosquito. Let's not continue to hijack this thread.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,233787.0.html
Agreed lets stop all this moralising.
The basic premise is why werent Mossies used in place of the heavies and the best conclussion I can come to is that with hindsight they largely should have replaced Lancaster, Halifax, B17 and B24 in both area and precision bombing.
The next question is why werent they at the time?
There is no evidence the proposition was ever considered.
Was iit that the information to make the proposition was not available to challenge established dogma.
I do seem to remember when it comes to the US the Sherman Firefly wasnt adopted because it had a Brithish Gun!!!!
Anyway succinctly put I suspect it was a combination of short termism, vested interest and the innability to challenge an established dogma which too many already had too mich invested in.
-
My old friend who flew both Spitfires and then P51's and ended up doing escorts over Berlin (Escorting England based B-17's) had an opinion on that. RIDICULOUS. He said that they had to lob about for 6 hours at great altitude for dropping a weight of 2-4K per B17, because they were full of guns and ammo and people and so on.
He said the escorts alone, being jabos in the first place could have done the job twice over with even more accuracy, and in case intercepted, jettison and tackle with the inbounds.
As for Mossies, his remark was "simply amazing", "almost untouchable" and "outrunning us".
Anyway, good point!
This does it for me :aok
-
Tooling up is an issue too...
Converting to Mosquitoes would have meant shutting down factories and re-training the workers. This would have reduced overall bomber production. In addition, although the mossie used mainly non-strategic materials, converting everything all at once to the one type would have put a strain on the supplies of appropriate wood/ laminates/ glue/jigs etc.
Maybe a more gradual change in manufacturing priorities would have been better - but the war was already reaching the end by the time opinion would have supported a change-over and new technologies (e.g. the jet) were already to outdate the mossie anyway.
Further more you need more quailified pilots/bomb with mossies - and that would have put a strain on the personnel supply side too.
-
Lumpy, with all due respect, the allusion to Spain holds no valid grouds.
Franco was not fascist. In fact there were so many differences between Franquism as a regime and Mussolini's than they could be whole different worlds. The basic ideology was not the same to start with (Franco's dictatorship was right winged...that's about the only thing comparable with fascism/Nazism...and even that is not completely true if you keep in mind both the Fascist and Nazi parties started with Socialist influences, Mussolini himself being a socialist in the late 10's/early 20s, and the NSDAP having the "Socialist" term in it's name for a good reason)
Franquism relationship with Fascism/Nazism was reduced to the fact that both ITaly and Germany actively helped the Nationalist side during the Spanish Civil war (and so Franco had to dance their tune for the following years. Even more knowing the Germans were at the other side of the Pyrenees), and that they all three were dictatorships. The spanish dictatorship's ideology (there was not an official one, BTW, another difference between Franco and Mussolini/Hitler) changed a lot during Franco's life, but initially it was based (or so you could say) in the falangist ones. I won't enter into this here because of the huge off-topic this message is, but I'll just say Falangists and Fascist were quite different political moves with quite different ideologies and motivations. You're mixing apples with oranges here.
So, no, Spain was not a fascist country during WWII. And just for the record, I'm far from being a franco admirer, but truth is truth.
-
Okay, - many issues...
Did the western allies (Britain and France at the time) declare war because of Fascism? IMHO yes, they just got around to recognize what the nazi park was all about.
But Franco, he wanted a state of his own, on a park that cannot (due to geographical issues) easily be defeated. He did his work, and then wanted to leave others to their lives. BTW, Hitler approached Franco on the subject of a possible job of Germans taking Gibraltar. Franco said NO.
(This is the occasion where Hitler said that he'd rather have some teeth pulled out than doing that discussion again)
Now,Martyn:
"Converting to Mosquitoes would have meant shutting down factories and re-training the workers. This would have reduced overall bomber production"
Are you sure? The reason for the mossie getting through in the first place was that it used techniques and workforce already available as well as somewhat idle. Same thing was for the continued production of the Hurricane when it was obsolete, - it could be produced along with others because the craft was there as well as the manpower from old.
IMHO no shut-downs, just a change of emphasis.
The Mossie was not the favour at the time, it went up and flew and showed it's true merit, - at the time the ball was already rolling another way...