Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: moot on February 01, 2009, 01:13:16 AM
-
The question is which of these two would fare better in the MAs? Is one of the two more interesting from a historical perspective? The 219 seems to have been produced in pretty small numbers.. Four times less than the 410: 300 vs 1200. So historicaly, the 410 would be a more valuable addition, unless it played more roles absent in AH than the 410 did.
M00T...the only major change to the 410 was more horse power. Minor changes were made to the airframe.
As I said...110 Production was canceled.....but was reinstated due to the poor performance of the 210 and 410.
Now.....if that isn't proof the LW didn't like them...I don't know what is. ;)
Willy was almost forced to resign his post because of the debacle.
The problem with the LW was they tried to make all their aircraft a jack of all trades. They were succesful in a very few.
Again...if you want a LW twin engined fighter ask for the He 219....it was a succesful fighter.
The 219 was more heavily armed then the 410, it was faster, and more maneuverable from all accounts.
It was a Mossie on steroids.
The 110 being put back in prod might just be politics. Maybe half of all I've heard and read about the LW is full of crappy politics.. Everything from hair splitting luftwaffle squibbles to full blown BS like Hitler's insistence on the 262 being a bomber. Apparently the 219 had such a purse fight around it too (someone called Milch and the guy apparently in charge of the 219). So I take it with a grain of salt, as well as anecdotic qualifiers like the 110's expected (before we got it) flaky flight characteristics. The rest is all from wikipedia, don't really have time to dig thru a lot:
Both planes use the DB603. The 410 the 603A, and the 219 the E. The E has marginaly better output, and is rated to 7km instead of the A's 5.7km. Does this make much difference in the power/altitude curve? Because otherwise the two planes are very similar: both have a ~30kft ceiling, and both have a top speed in the mid-high 380s. And the 410 is a lot lighter than the 219, while both have the same engines! :)
What about maneuverability? Both have anecdotic bad marks, the 219 was "underpowered and had low maneuverability", and the 410 was "merely" an improved 210 which was infamously quirky. Is it possible to set the two apart? The 219 is nearly twice as heavy as the 410, empty. If we use the wing loading rough rule of thumb (on empty weights, to bias this for pure dogfighting potential), we see that the 410 is much lighter on its wings than the 219, despite the 219's much larger wing area (390ft2 vs 478ft2): 51.4lbs/ft2 to the 410's 33lbs/ft2.
Flaps would play an important part, if they differed, but it looks like both use plain flaps. Maybe one of the two has larger flaps relative to the total wing area? The elevator and hstab areas, and aileron areas could be compared too.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3444/3243555264_da2c2b8987_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3396/3243555234_b4a3f15205.jpg)
Those aren't slotted flaps, are they?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3348/3242841145_83826ee66c_o.jpg)
This shot's from a game, so one more grain of salt there..
The cockpit in both planes look very good. The 219 has barely any nose ahead of the windscreen:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3354/3242755699_1c68ac9b6c_o.jpg)
Visibility would be great, with its bubble canopy and wings further back than the 410's. The 410 has a similarly stubby nose ahead of the pilot, but also has glass sections right down the middle of the cockpit's forward part (click for bigger):
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3420/3243587676_b71c85cd4b_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3329/3242755617_db904b9556.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3329/3242755617_4c587373ef_o.jpg)
So while you wouldn't have the 219's visibility on angles below and behind the cockpit, the 410 allows you the less accessory benefit of a glass cockpit for lead shots, provided you're in plane with the target's trajectory.
As far as guns are concerned, the 410 is slightly better. They both had provisions for the MK103, but the 410 had a pair of them standard whereas the 219 "seldom" had them fitted for weight concerns. The 219 could carry Schrage muzic 30mm's, though, and players of AH would easily exploit these as well as the equally effective MK103s' range and lethality, by e.g. making passes at bombers with the SM equipped He219 on indirect trajectories while the guns would be pointed on target.. Might take some practice, but it would definitely be bad news for bombers. The 219 would never have to be pointed directly at the incoming fire.
The 410 has rear guns but that's probably negligible. While the 219 had (apparently, the couple of articles I had time to find weren't consistent) as many as 4 fwd-firing MK108s + some 20mm's.. That's impressive, but the 103s were omitted most of the time (not promising for their inclusion in AH's He219), and there weren't as many different packages as the 410: 6x 20mm, or (guaranteed) MK103s in the nose, and possibly a BK5 50mm. I think it's pretty much neck and neck between the two planes.
I see three decisive points between these two: First, the complete unknown of maneuvering character (flaps, departure, spins, verticals..) You can't read that off specification charts. Second, any difference in the speed/altitude curves might make or break their proficiency in the game. As it is, the figures I see are nearly identical. And third.. I forgot the third one.
Both planes are beautiful.
-
I'd love to see the Me410 added to AH.
The He219 is an over rated piece of junk that Heinkel claimed would do 420mph, but it never broke 400mph level in Luftwaffe service.
-
Wasnt the HE219 and night intercepter?
-
Wasnt the HE219 and night intercepter?
Yes. In the first night fight Werner Streib shotdown 5 bristish bombers, but crash land because
electronic flaps problems.
Amazing plane, but a bit useless for AH.
-
The 410 would make a more interesting option in AH. The 219 was specifically made for night intercepts so in AH, where we don't have nights or on-board radar, it is somewhat useless. Historically it was a great bomber interceptor though. Industrially and politically challenged because of the corrupt and power hungry nazi leaders, it did not see as much use as it should have. The 410 was a fairly well improved design over the 110 and quite advanced. Of course I've never flown one, but what I've read suggests that most of the bad handling of the 110 was straightened out with the new wing. Not sure how or even if those rear gun barbettes would be implemented in AH though. If they make them like the Ar232s barbettes they'd be near useless.
So, in short, my vote is on the Me410 Hornisse (Hornet).
-
The 219 was specifically made for night intercepts so in AH, where we don't have nights or on-board radar, it is somewhat useless.
It wouldn't be useless if it was faster and more maneuverable than the Me 410.
That would make the 219 more fun in Aces High.
I voted for the 410, it looks like fun, but if the He 219 is going to be a more capable fighter/attack platform as far as Aces High goes.... well, that's where my vote is going.
It looks like it's time for some comparative stats and figures.
-
The Me410 looks like it would be a dream to take lead shots in, and also that that heavy armament wouldn't be able to be used for HO-shots due to the lack of pilot protection from the front.
I like the Bf.110 in the first place, but sometimes I wish for something a bit faster for late war. It also wins over the 219 in the sexiness department (IMO it's the best looking twin engined fighter of the war). The Me410 would be a dream come true...
-
The Me410 would be a dream come true...
Yeah... but so would the Ju87G, Hs129, He177, He111, Do217, Ju288/388, Me323 and He115 be... as well as any type of German tank. :rock
I'm easy to please... just add more German hardware. :)
-
I'm honestly skeptical about the 219 outturning the 410.
Just by seeing how huge it is :O
-
I'm honestly skeptical about the 219 outturning the 410.
Just by seeing how huge it is :O
And thus it is demonstrated that the F4U cannot possibly out-turn the La7 :D
-
is that a CH stick?
-
The Me410 looks like it would be a dream to take lead shots in, and also that that heavy armament wouldn't be able to be used for HO-shots due to the lack of pilot protection from the front.
I like the Bf.110 in the first place, but sometimes I wish for something a bit faster for late war. It also wins over the 219 in the sexiness department (IMO it's the best looking twin engined fighter of the war). The Me410 would be a dream come true...
Not to exagerate here, but the MK103s would allow you to take the shot and evade before the other plane's (most likely) weak guns could lock on to you. It seems like the same sort of tradeoff that some of us take with less maneuverable but faster and better armed planes. That's on the assumption that those two planes of glass are as weak as that. I don't really expect that they will resist a hispano, but 303s may just bounce off. Isn't it the 190A8 that had armored front glass that just shrugged off 50's from US bombers?
The speeds are interesting: the 219 weighs nearly twice the 410, and yet the speeds are similar. I reckon the 219 might simply have been cleaner for top speed, but would be a real handful below that. I expect it wouldn't have such thrust as the 410. It wouldn't really be the better choice for all out air combat unless it behaved like the 152 compared to the 190s: heavy and relatively underpowered, but with a lot of wing area so that it's very maneuverable if you handle it just right.
-
190A-8 with the additional armor plates was specifically made to take .50s and keep flying.
(http://www.museum119.cz/tour/Sturmbock_1d.jpg)
Not really the best image, but you see the additional heavy glass plating on the sides... Protecting the pilot was the priority. When attacking the big mass of the engine usually protected the pilot fairly well but as soon as the attacker broke off the pilot immediately became exposed. Hence the additional side plating.
(http://hsfeatures.com/features04/images/fw190a832bg_32.jpg)
On this model you can see the additional heavy glass frames and side armor plating.
I don't have to tell you the impact on performance this additional weight had, but at least the pilot had considerably better chance to survive a close encounter with a formation of buffs.
(http://www.pegatiros.com/reportajes/aviacion/sturm/Fw190S6.jpg)
Note how the cannons were armored so that they wouldn't get knocked out so easily. This is how the 190s could assault a formation of bombers from behind, and they never did it alone there was always a pack of them going in at the same time.
-
I'd love to see the Me410 added to AH.
The He219 is an over rated piece of junk that Heinkel claimed would do 420mph, but it never broke 400mph level in Luftwaffe service.
really...... Werner Streib thought it was a fine aircraft. In 10 days 3 prototypes shot down 20 British bombers and 6 Mossies. Big deal it couldn't fly over 400 mph. It was a night fighter. It did what it was designed for.
-
really...... Werner Streib thought it was a fine aircraft. In 10 days 3 prototypes shot down 20 British bombers and 6 Mossies. Big deal it couldn't fly over 400 mph. It was a night fighter. It did what it was designed for.
Most people who request it think it did 420mph. The He219 was manhandled by Mosquito night-fighters.
-
Most people who request it think it did 420mph. The He219 was manhandled by Mosquito night-fighters.
Really where can this info be found.
-
Well, either way the He219 was the best LW night fighter and it was quite successful at shooting down British night bombers regardless of how it performed against the mossie.
-
Wings of the Luftwaffe by Capt. Eric Brown CBE,DSC,AFC,RN.
HE 219A-7/R2
Performance (factory figures):
Max Speed, 289mph at sea level
298mph at 6,560ft (2000m)
332mph at 13,125ft (4000m)
363mph at 19,685ft (6000m)
climb rate at sea level, 1,968ft/min
6,560 ft, 1,693ft/min
13,125ft, 1,417ft/min
"In my view, the Heinkel fighter -- certainly in its He 219A-2 version -- was decidedly underpowered. An engine failure on take-off must have been a very nasty emergency to handle at night...."
wrongway
-
In 10 days 3 prototypes shot down 20 British bombers and 6 Mossies.
One of the all-time great baseless yet somehow enduring myths.
-
One of the all-time great baseless yet somehow enduring myths.
So why do you think that these claims on the 20 lancs are false? I read the pilots story that shot down 5 Lancs in one sortie. Werner was a highly decorated pilot. If you know anything about Luftwaffe victory claims then you would know that not only his radar operator's word but plane wreckage and gun camera footage (if applicable) would also be used to verify the claim.
-
Wings of the Luftwaffe by Capt. Eric Brown CBE,DSC,AFC,RN.
HE 219A-7/R2
Performance (factory figures):
Max Speed, 289mph at sea level
298mph at 6,560ft (2000m)
332mph at 13,125ft (4000m)
363mph at 19,685ft (6000m)
climb rate at sea level, 1,968ft/min
6,560 ft, 1,693ft/min
13,125ft, 1,417ft/min
wrongway
Wow, that's dead slow...
-
So why do you think that these claims on the 20 lancs are false? I read the pilots story that shot down 5 Lancs in one sortie. Werner was a highly decorated pilot. If you know anything about Luftwaffe victory claims then you would know that not only his radar operator's word but plane wreckage and gun camera footage (if applicable) would also be used to verify the claim.
And if you knew anything about Luftwaffe claims, you'd know that no claims for the "six Mosquitos" even exist, other than in the minds of some fantasist author somewhere back in the past, and the infinite stream of drone fanbois who parrot him.
-
it would be intresting to see what HTC would do with the remote rear guns on the 410.
-
Only one prototype was planned with the twin-gun rear "barbette" but I don't think any were produced (can't recall, but think it was "planned" but not "built").
Overall the 219 has little to no place in AH. The 410, on the other hand, would have quite a following, methinks. I know I'd fly it! Bomber hunter, better JABO than the 110G we have now (new mission monster, no doubt!), and the more exotic weapons packages could use the "perked weapons options" feature HTC is trying to implement.
P.S. No matter what the actual performance of the 219 really was, it was one of the fastest night fighters the LW had. I can see how they'd welcome it for firepower and for performance, even if it didn't live up to "promised specs".
-
190A-8 with the additional armor plates was specifically made to take .50s and keep flying.
I don't have to tell you the impact on performance this additional weight had, but at least the pilot had considerably better chance to survive a close encounter with a formation of buffs.
Most pilots removed the armoured glass due to the glass' tendency to trap air between it and the canopy causing a fog that iced up and effectively removed all peripheral vision, according to the Osprey book on the Sturmgruppen.
Photos of later aircraft show fewer and fewer Sturmbocken (? correct pluralisation in German?) carrying the armoured glass and even a few that had ditched or not come with the armour plates on the sides of the cockpit too.
Obviously the speed and maneuverability trade off that came with the addition of the armour was considered more dangerous.
-
One Sturmbock, two Sturmböcke, IIRC.
-
Only one prototype was planned with the twin-gun rear "barbette" but I don't think any were produced (can't recall, but think it was "planned" but not "built").
Overall the 219 has little to no place in AH. The 410, on the other hand, would have quite a following, methinks. I know I'd fly it! Bomber hunter, better JABO than the 110G we have now (new mission monster, no doubt!), and the more exotic weapons packages could use the "perked weapons options" feature HTC is trying to implement.
P.S. No matter what the actual performance of the 219 really was, it was one of the fastest night fighters the LW had. I can see how they'd welcome it for firepower and for performance, even if it didn't live up to "promised specs".
I think the He219 would be fun, but it isn't the superplane that many think it is. The best night-fighter of the war was the Mosquito NF.Mk 30, which was substantially better than any of the German machines that saw significant service. The only German night-fighter that really threatened the Mosquito bombers was the night-fighter version of the Me262, but very few of those saw service.
-
Most pilots removed the armoured glass due to the glass' tendency to trap air between it and the canopy causing a fog that iced up and effectively removed all peripheral vision, according to the Osprey book on the Sturmgruppen.
Photos of later aircraft show fewer and fewer Sturmbocken (? correct pluralisation in German?) carrying the armoured glass and even a few that had ditched or not come with the armour plates on the sides of the cockpit too.
Obviously the speed and maneuverability trade off that came with the addition of the armour was considered more dangerous.
That's because the A-8s were already being manhandled by the numerous formations of P51s, adding armor didn't help! Even if the priority was to shoot down bombers, Luftwaffe pilots were either shot down by the bombers or by the fighters. Many times they couldn't even get to the bombers before the 51s were all over them. So yeah... the pilots did what they felt was right to increase their chances of survival, as simple as that. Survival first, shooting down the enemy second.
-
And if you knew anything about Luftwaffe claims, you'd know that no claims for the "six Mosquitos" even exist, other than in the minds of some fantasist author somewhere back in the past, and the infinite stream of drone fanbois who parrot him.
Well I do not have access to original Luftwaffe claim documents as I doubt you do so finding out if 6 Mossie's were shot down is really not an option for either of us now is it. I was referring to the 5 Lancs that Werner shot down in one mission or do you think that is a bogus claim as well?
-
Which is it now? The 5 Lancs, or the 20 bombers, or the 6 Mossies?
I don't know sh*t about Lancs - the 6 Mossies story is bogus.
-
So why do you think that these claims on the 20 lancs are false? I read the pilots story that shot down 5 Lancs in one sortie. Werner was a highly decorated pilot. If you know anything about Luftwaffe victory claims then you would know that not only his radar operator's word but plane wreckage and gun camera footage (if applicable) would also be used to verify the claim.
This was my post you made refrence to. The 20 Lancs were mentioned as was the 5. I made no mention about the 6 mossies being shot down by Werner Strieb.
-
Bzzzt. The quote was "In 10 days 3 prototypes shot down 20 British bombers and 6 Mossies. "
The story about the 6 Mossies is bogus.
-
ME 410 would be nice, although if modeled corectly would be easy fodder for most other aircraft in AH !
-
ME 410 would be nice, although if modeled corectly would be easy fodder for most other aircraft in AH !
Referring to, specificaly?
-
Referring to, specificaly?
Coming from the 210 model, the 410 shared much of the stability and manuverability flaws in its predecessor. The 603 engines cured much of the power problems very satisfactorily, yet turn performance was still very poor. I believe it should actually perform worse than the 110 asside from the engine power! It is Damn sexy though! In it's attack mode I'm sure it was very deadly. The ability for it to defend itself by manouvre is what I'm refering to!
-
Are either of these planes as manuverable or more manuverable than the A-20?
I've seen some guys in here fly the A-20 like it was a bat outta hell !
But regardless of manuverability, either plane would be a welcome addition.
-
I've also seen guys who fly the A-20 like the devil, however it is still a easy kill. Most any fighter will outlast the A-20 in a prolonged fight however if you let yourself be surprised you could get killed before having the chance to turn the fight to your favor.
-
there are some very good a-20 pilots that will give you a hard time but the a 20 is big and gets shot down by the wirbles a lot
-
Scherf
The He 219 had an auspicious combat debut. On the night of 11-12 June 1943, Werner Streib flew the V9 and shot down five bombers, before crashing on landing.[2] In the next ten days the three Heinkels He 219A-0 pre-production aircraft would shoot down a total of 20 RAF aircraft, including six of the previously "untouchable" de Havilland Mosquito fighter/bombers. Greatly encouraged, Kammhuber continued to press for immediate production
From September 1944 through to May 1945 a total of 92 night-flying Mosquitoes of all marks flying bombing, target marking, intruder and nightfighter operations were lost
now maybe wiki is not the best form of resource material, (alot of inaccuracies) but for a quick check on the issue they do show that the claim of the 6 kills was recorded and that enough night fighters were lost during the war that this claim could hold some validity.
so instead of offering an empty and baseless argument why dont you show where your information that this is an inaccuracy comes from.
as has been proven over many issues, the allies were far more likely to falsify and/or exaggerate reports than the germans were, (the battle of kursk, number of air to air kills as opposed to those actually killed on the ground ect) i believe it is upon you as the disputer of the claim to offer some proof aside from your "cause i said so" to support your claim.
-
Coming from the 210 model, the 410 shared much of the stability and manuverability flaws in its predecessor. The 603 engines cured much of the power problems very satisfactorily, yet turn performance was still very poor. I believe it should actually perform worse than the 110 asside from the engine power! It is Damn sexy though! In it's attack mode I'm sure it was very deadly. The ability for it to defend itself by manouvre is what I'm refering to!
No, what is your source? Where did you read this / who wrote that?
Here's another anecdotic data point (from here (http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4763)):
Just browsed through Johannes Kaufmann´s memoirs. He gives a very favourable assessment of the Me210 compared to the Bf110. He does not consider the handling difficult at all.
reply to this:
Well he had air sense due to prior service on the Bf110, so when the Me210 began to try to break into a ground loop, he was able to control it. And this was the main problem with the Me210, the problem of ground looping the a/c on take-off and landing.
Yes, he was very disappointed when, after the retraining onto the Me210 was halted, he had to return to the Bf110.
-
410A1 vs. Mossie XVI
Wingloading 168kg/m2 -> 153kg/m2 (empty weights)
Powerloading 1,76hp/kg -> 1,89hp/kg (empty weights)
While inferior in numbers the 410 does not look all that bad compared to Mossie and I'd also like to see sources claiming 410 to be unstable.
-C+
-
I count 107 Mosquito bombers that failed to return from September 1, 1944 through April, 1944 out of 16,191 sorties in that time period. That is a loss rate of 0.66% No Mosquito Bomber failed to return in May, 1945.
In the same period a year earlier, September 1st, 1943 through April 1944, I count 35 Mosquito bombers that failed to return out of 4109 sorties. That is a loss rate of 0.85%.
The loss of Mosquito bombers went down slightly in the period that the He219 was active compared to the same period a year earlier.
-
Bzzzt. The quote was "In 10 days 3 prototypes shot down 20 British bombers and 6 Mossies. "
The story about the 6 Mossies is bogus.
I don't believe any mosquitos flown by RAF bomber command were shotdown at night in June '43, evidence suggests only 1 mosquito was lost during June.
On 14th June 1943 mosquito IX LR501, assigned to 1409 meteorlogical flight was shotdown on a weather reconnaissance sortie by 190's at 28,000ft near Mayenne, France. http://www.lostbombers.co.uk/bomber.php?id=1596 (http://www.lostbombers.co.uk/bomber.php?id=1596) No other mosquitos were lost in June, this website cooperates with known RAF Bomber Command Mosquitos night losses below.
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/MossieLosses.bmp)
-
I don't believe any mosquitos flown by RAF bomber command were shotdown at night in June '43, evidence suggests only 1 mosquito was lost during June.
On 14th June 1943 mosquito IX LR501, assigned to 1409 meteorlogical flight was shotdown on a weather reconnaissance sortie by 190's at 28,000ft near Mayenne, France. http://www.lostbombers.co.uk/bomber.php?id=1596 (http://www.lostbombers.co.uk/bomber.php?id=1596) No other mosquitos were lost in June, this website cooperates with known RAF Bomber Command Mosquitos night losses below.
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/MossieLosses.bmp)
now that makes for a very strong argument.
which is the kind of support that should be presented when making direct arguments for or against something stated by someone else.
arguments presented like this help prevent these threads from disseminating into insult contests heated up over unsupported opinions.
<SALUTE> Thrila
-
Very nice information Thrila, I do have one question.
Were night Mosquito missions only carried out by RAF bomber command?
I thought some Mosquito's were assigned to RAF fighter command?
just curious and thanks for the site and the data, like FLOTSOM said, presenting data helps resolve the discussion in the best way.
:salute Baumer
-
FYI, Thrila's chart is the one I took the information for the post right above his from. As a matter of fact, if you look at the link he used, it is my chart that I uploaded after copying it from one of my Mosquito books.
Although looking at it closer now, I erroneously assigned those written off due to damage after returning to the "failed to return" category.
Mosquito bombers had a shockingly low loss rate.
-
Wasn't called the "wooden wonder" for nothing.
In a way the Germans paid tribute to the Mosquito by naming the Ta154 Moskito, but I guess you're all familiar with that story.
-
Very nice information Thrila, I do have one question.
Were night Mosquito missions only carried out by RAF bomber command?
I thought some Mosquito's were assigned to RAF fighter command?
just curious and thanks for the site and the data, like FLOTSOM said, presenting data helps resolve the discussion in the best way.
:salute Baumer
Mosquitos were operated by Fighter Command and Coastal Command as well.
-
I believe it is upon you as the disputer of the claim to offer some proof aside from your "cause i said so" to support your claim.
BS - I don't do "prove the negative" anymore. Fanboi wants to make the claim that 6 Mossies were shot down, he can do the work to go back it up. Names dates times places targets.
-
Very nice information Thrila, I do have one question.
Were night Mosquito missions only carried out by RAF bomber command?
I thought some Mosquito's were assigned to RAF fighter command?
just curious and thanks for the site and the data, like FLOTSOM said, presenting data helps resolve the discussion in the best way.
:salute Baumer
If the Mosquito in question has guns it is pretty much part of Fighter Command or Coastal Command. All of the night-fighter Mosquitoes were part of Fighter Command. FB.Mk VIs, like we have in AH, served in both Fighter Command and Coastal Command.
-
BS - I don't do "prove the negative" anymore. Fanboi wants to make the claim that 6 Mossies were shot down, he can do the work to go back it up. Names dates times places targets.
so in essence your the type of person that runs his mouth just to talk trash and instigate an argument in a thread. i believe that would be called trolling. you live under bridges too?
from what i found on wiki it would at first appear that his argument was correct, until that is it was view against the light of what appears to be more reasonable and credible sources that dispute it. now its back up for discussion with most readers im sure leaning towards the losses reports instead of the wiki write up.
point is that had someone else not done the work to support your claims you would look like a fool in the light of what was available for proof. there was apparently reasonable cause to establish his argument and you had squat but lip service to offer. doesnt really make your opinion a very credible one.
now on the other hand if you dont know where to find the information supporting your side of the discussion then just say you dont know where it is or ask if someone here does know where or if they can find and post it for you. those are perfectly acceptable, at least in my eyes, reasons for putting forth a differing view that you are supporting by memory. there is always some one here with or willing to hunt down any information you may want.
just dont be a jack-off when you enter a thread, instead of starting an empty and unsupported argument try to have a conversation. you may find that there are alot of not so stupid people in here who would like to hear what you have to say as long as you present it in a fashion that is respectful and not just antagonistic.
-
Mosquitos were operated by Fighter Command and Coastal Command as well.
Until i read baumers post i hadn't even given it a thought. I looked into it and RAF bomber command didn't start acquiring it's own night-fighter force until late '43, so night fighter losses would show up soley in RAF fighter command's losses. It is entirely possible that the He-219 shotdown a bunch of mosquitos. I would like to solve this one way or the other so i've decided to buy a book on RAF fighter command operational losses. :)
Thanks for the charts karnak :D
<S> flot
-
It's called Fighter Command Losses, thrila, by Norman Franks.
The other one is the Fighter Command War Diaries, also by Franks.
Get 'em from the library though, you'll be wasting your money otherwise, if it's this issue you're after.
-
FLOTSAM,
Scherf has more info than I do on the Mosquito by far. That he doesn't want to bother with fanboys by searching through tons of info is understandable when it is the person making the claim who needs to back it up with hard data. Wikipedia is not hard data, nor is it evidence. If he wanted to back it up he could have gone to wikipedia and looked at the references their article uses, then found those sources and used that. Encyclopedias of any type should never be used directly as a reference.
-
FLOTSAM,
Scherf has more info than I do on the Mosquito by far. That he doesn't want to bother with fanboys by searching through tons of info is understandable when it is the person making the claim who needs to back it up with hard data. Wikipedia is not hard data, nor is it evidence. If he wanted to back it up he could have gone to wikipedia and looked at the references their article uses, then found those sources and used that. Encyclopedias of any type should never be used directly as a reference.
i guess my point was that if you dispute a statement made, then give solid grounds for it. this is the best way to keep these threads honest and for those of us who do not know to all of the facts to learn them correctly.
too many threads that started out as a good conversation have digressed into insult contests that serve no purpose and nobody gets anything out of it.
if you make a statement stand behind it with some form of support, or if you dont have the support on hand give a direction for those of us interested to start looking in.
i guess im just tired of seeing every conversation turned into trash so maybe i was a little touchy in my post, for my lack of discretion i apologize.
Scherf thanx for the titles, i will go to the library when i have the time.
<SALUTE> all
-
FLOTSAM,
Scherf has more info than I do on the Mosquito by far. That he doesn't want to bother with fanboys by searching through tons of info is understandable when it is the person making the claim who needs to back it up with hard data. Wikipedia is not hard data, nor is it evidence. If he wanted to back it up he could have gone to wikipedia and looked at the references their article uses, then found those sources and used that. Encyclopedias of any type should never be used directly as a reference.
I found that info about the Mossie's from a few websites not just Wiki . I also have a copy of "fighter Ace's of the Luftwaffe" that contains the story narrated by Werner Streib who shot down 5 Lancs in one night with the He219. It isn't a stretch that 6 Mossies were shot down by 219's. I'm sure that if in fact they were shot down it most likely was by surprise and not plane speed or handling .Now whether the plane was all it was suppose to be is another issue but it was described by Streib to be with further development a suitable replacement as a frontline night fighter for the Luftwaffe. To me Flotsum is correct in asking where Scherf gets his info. To just boldly make statements in opposition to someones post without backing information is rather antagonistic. Your statement about Mossie's manhandling He219's is a also a baseless post . I asked you where that info could be found with no answer.
-
I don't believe any mosquitos flown by RAF bomber command were shotdown at night in June '43, evidence suggests only 1 mosquito was lost during June.
On 14th June 1943 mosquito IX LR501, assigned to 1409 meteorlogical flight was shotdown on a weather reconnaissance sortie by 190's at 28,000ft near Mayenne, France. http://www.lostbombers.co.uk/bomber.php?id=1596 (http://www.lostbombers.co.uk/bomber.php?id=1596) No other mosquitos were lost in June, this website cooperates with known RAF Bomber Command Mosquitos night losses below.
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/MossieLosses.bmp)
Stupid question on the chart.... Where is June 1943? This is the month in question and it is not on there. I read the same info on Mossie losses in Capt. Brown's book. Of course he says "allegedly".
wrongway
-
Good one wrngway . I don't see any data for June 43 either .
-
Good one wrngway . I don't see any data for June 43 either .
thats funny! i looked and saw may went down one and didnt even think to look that it wasnt june! :O what a dork that i didnt catch that! :huh
good eyes people.
course hlbly this doesnt change the fact that your still a snaggled tooth red neck who digs watching the sunsets in the company of llamas!
-
Any statements not backed by evidence are questionable, especialy if they're going against more established assumptions and moreso if they're not "sky is blue" type of self-evident statements. I don't think there's any reason to get angry here, but imo Scherf did nothing wrong asking for evidence to back up the Mossie kill claims that apparently have already been disputed for a while.. Anyway, water under the bridge here.
I reckon the 219 was a pretty sluggish plane, however well-mannered it might have been in comparison with the 410. It was considerably larger and roughly twice as heavy, despite being propelled by "only" the same engines as the 410. Did the 219 have leading edge slats? It seems like the 410 did. It's looking like the 410 would be the better plane to be in (all other things being equal) in AH.
The figures I've found for the 410 and Mk.VI show that the 410 would actualy be a little better once the ord was gone:
| | | He219 | Me410 | Mossie |
| wingload |
| | empty | 51.4 | 33 | 31 |
| | t/o | 70 | 63 | 40 |
| Powerload (hp / klbs) |
| | empty | 140 | 270 | 230 |
| | t/o | | 166 | 178 |
| Weight(k lbs) |
| | empty | 25 | 13 | 14.3 |
| | t/o | | 21 | 18.5 |
| Area | | 478 | 390 | 454 |
| Power | 2x | 1750 | 1750 | 1645 |
There's no leading edge flaps on the Mossie and although the Mossie might be cleaner (would explain the same topspeed despite power deficit), it doesn't have nearly as much power per lean weight as the 410.
Does anyone have a speed/altitude chart for the 410?
-
Stupid question on the chart.... Where is June 1943? This is the month in question and it is not on there. I read the same info on Mossie losses in Capt. Brown's book. Of course he says "allegedly".
wrongway
No Bomber Command Mosquitoes were lost in June, 1943, thus it isn't on the list.
-
Moot,
Which mark of the Mosquito are you using for comparison? Power being listed as 1300 makes me think you are looking at an early mark, one that entered service 2+ years prior to the Me410 or He210. Our Mk VI in AH has two 1645hp engines and entered service in June, 1943 for example
-
Thanks, our mossie is what I care about for this argument.. gonna edit the figures in that table. Do you have a definite take-off weight with fuel and ammo, no bombs?
-
Thanks, our mossie is what I care about for this argument.. gonna edit the figures in that table. Do you have a definite take-off weight with fuel and ammo, no bombs?
No, but I think AH is pretty accurate in that so if you take the smaller ammo load and full fuel the E6B should tell you the correct weight. Keep in mid that the range on it is nuts with full fuel so most people in AH take 50%. I am not sure where the Me410 and He219 will stand on that though. I'd go with full fuel. It should be close to 19,000-20,000lbs.
-
E6B in AH, duh.. thanks.
19klbs for the Me410, right? The He219 would be a lot heavier, already 25k empty. I think it's outta the competition already :)
-
E6B in AH, duh.. thanks.
19klbs for the Me410, right? The He219 would be a lot heavier, already 25k empty. I think it's outta the competition already :)
Sorry, I added that after. I meant the Mossie 6 should be about 19,000lbs.
I show 13,560lbs empty for the 410 and 23,483lbs at max loaded.
-
Right, 23.5 is about what I saw for max t/o, but that's with the ordnance included, right? I'm trying to do this for dogfighting trims. AH E6B says 18,725lbs for 50% fuel and large ammo load in the Mossie.
Maybe I can get a pretty accurate estimate if I find the tankage and unit-weight of fuel used, and ammo counts for a medium-gunned Me410. I'll pick a fuel load that gives about the same range as 50% in the Mossie. Looks like I'd better do that, cause the mossie goes from 14.3klbs empty to 18.7 at full ammo and half fuel, but the 410 goes from 13k to 21 for it's "take-off" weight as listed on the web.
-
No Bomber Command Mosquitoes were lost in June, 1943, thus it isn't on the list.
I thought the same thing initially. No Bomber Command Mosquitoes were lost in May, 1945 and we know that because it is on the list.
Just makes me wonder.
wrongway
-
I thought the same thing initially. No Bomber Command Mosquitoes were lost in May, 1945 and we know that because it is on the list.
Just makes me wonder.
wrongway
True. That is odd. Maybe the data for May, 1943 was lost? That chart is taken from a book published in 1967. It is also possible that the chart is simply inconsistent.
-
True. That is odd. Maybe the data for May, 1943 was lost? That chart is taken from a book published in 1967. It is also possible that the chart is simply inconsistent.
Google search for "Mosquito losses June 1943" came up with De Havilland Mosquito By Ian Thirsk, Stuart Howe
Mosquito bombers flew a total of 39,795 sorties during the Second World War, delivering 26,867 tons of bombs. Losses amounted to 254 aircraft representing a loss rate of 0.63 percent, the lowest of any aircraft type in Bomber Command.
Don't know if this total is correct or not, but the chart shows 196 losses vs. 254 here.
wrongway
-
What seems odd to me is that all of these sources only talk about RAF Bomber Command losses, and they seem to leave out Fighter Command and Coastal Command.
Getting back to the point of the original post, I'd personally like to have the He-219 in the game, however, the Me-410 is one that should be added first. It was used in greater numbers (I believe) and would do more to fill out the late war Luftwaffe plane set, for special events.
-
Hi Flotsom:
Thanks for your post. My reply to you was abrupt and rude, for which I apologise.
My view still stands, though. As Karnak very kindly points out, I do have a great deal of information about this. However, when it comes to proving a negative, it's never enough.
So, these days, I just call BS. If people want to claim six Mossies were shot down by He 219s during the period in question, fine. Let them back it up with, as posted, names dates times places targets etc. In this particular case, they don't, because they can't, because there is no information, because it didn't happen.
As I said initially, this is one of the great enduring but baseless myths.
<S>
i guess my point was that if you dispute a statement made, then give solid grounds for it. this is the best way to keep these threads honest and for those of us who do not know to all of the facts to learn them correctly.
too many threads that started out as a good conversation have digressed into insult contests that serve no purpose and nobody gets anything out of it.
if you make a statement stand behind it with some form of support, or if you dont have the support on hand give a direction for those of us interested to start looking in.
i guess im just tired of seeing every conversation turned into trash so maybe i was a little touchy in my post, for my lack of discretion i apologize.
Scherf thanx for the titles, i will go to the library when i have the time.
<SALUTE> all
-
Google search for "Mosquito losses June 1943" came up with De Havilland Mosquito By Ian Thirsk, Stuart Howe
Don't know if this total is correct or not, but the chart shows 196 losses vs. 254 here.
wrongway
I think he's including Day Bomber losses, possibly Met sorties as well.
-
Cheers for the heads up scherf, i found a copy of 'fighter command losses 1942-1943' - one of the pluses of being unemployed is that i have lots of spare time to do silly things like hunting for books. :)
There were a total of 8 mosquito losses (+1 written off) for the month of June '43 . Only 2 of these were night fighter losses- one on 20/21 and the other 29/30, only the first of these correlates to the dates of the He-129 claims. Does anyone know where the He219 operated? Both of these mosquitos losses were believed to have crashed into the sea off the coast of southern england.
The evidence from bomber and fighter command losses combined suggests the he129 did not shoot down 6 mosquitos duringJune 1943.
I can't get my scanner to work on vista so i'll setup my old PC this evening to scan and post the pages.
-
Moot dont mean to continue highjacking your thread but...........
my problems believing whole heartedly in the german claim that "we shot down 6 Mossies during june at night" story, has always been;
1 wasnt the mossie virtually invisible to german radar?
2 isnt june and july notoriously heavy fog months over the channel and northern france?
if these are correct assessments of the facts, (purely based on memory derived from multiple varying sources) then how did the german night fighters see or even know that the mossies were present?
i remember reading along time ago a book written by a german 190 pilot ("defending berlin" or "in defense of berlin" or something like that) and he talked about a plane following german night fighters back to base in order to locate the german radar towers and the locations of fighter bases. he said the german radar wouldnt pick up these planes so the fighters leading them in wouldnt know he was being followed. he said many inexperienced fighters wouldnt circle looking for any planes trailing them but instead would head straight in to land, so many new german pilots were shot down upon landing because of this blindness to this mystery plane stalking him.
was this the mossie he was describing or just a mythical boogy man/plane that the germans invented to give a face to the fear and frustration they had at being repeatedly attacked on landing at night?
<S> all good conversation!!
-
I'm not sure the Mosquito was ;articularly stealthy - the nacelles were metal, the props were metal, a lot of the underwing hatch covers were metal, and the wings were laced with thousands (I once knew the exact number ... ) of brass screws ("you screw what you glue"). I've also translated a NJ account or two in which a LW radar operator picks up contacts heading straight and level, which his pilot can't catch, commenting "they must have been Mosquitos".
Many a mossie was lost to predicted flak as well.
There were indeed lots of low-level intruder Mosquitos out over Europe by night, looking to pick off LW aircraft as they took off or landed. Luftwaffe researcher mate of mine says "Mosquitoschreck" was (Mosquito fear, roughly translated) a term genuinely used by LW night fighter pilots, though I've not come across it in any original documentation myself.
-
In answer to a few questions brought up. I believe that the 219's that were flying flew out of night fighter base in Holland, I believe out of a base in the city Venlo. My father grew up in a town right next to venlo during WW2 and he does remember a lot of night activity. The Mossies were able to be picked up via the German radar. There is a German 262 night fighter pilot that lives in the LA area that I have spoken to through an interpater. He has 2 Mossie kills while flying said aircraft so Mossie's were able to be spotted on radar. The fog issue wouldn't be applicable to night fighter operations except takeoffs and landings. The alt that they hunted at was much higher than fog would be. I also believe that British bombing was done more on dead reckoning than via bombsite and via what they called the master of ceremonies which was a single bomber from the group that would bomb the target with incendiaries or by shooting off flares when over the target. Now how deep the 219's or other night fighters flew into coastal airspace I do not know.
-
I concur with Scherf that the Mosquito being invisible or even having a reduced radar return is a myth.
As to the German night-fighters fearing Mosquito night-fighters, I have read of them flying low to avoid the Mosquitoes and running into hills, the wreckage being found and attributed to Mosquitoes, increasing the fear all on a night when no Allied night-fighters made any claims.
There are a few other tactical considerations that gave the British night-fighters an almost insurmountable advantage in combat with German night-fighters, even leaving aside the superior performance of the Mosquito. 1) The German night-fighter crew would be looking in a bomber stream for targets, most of which are mostly harmless Lancasters and Halifaxes with some uncatchable Mosquito bombers tossed in and a few sharks, i.e. Mosquito night-fighters all with no way to tell which is which whereas any hostile contact a British night-fighter found was going to be a German night-fighter. 2) Then there was the cat and mouse of electronic warfare. The British had developed a tail warning radar they code named "Monica" to give Lancs and Halibags a warning when a German night-fighter was following them. The Germans quickly figured this out and used Monica as a homing device to lead them to British bombers. The British eventually figured that out and only used it in bursts rather than leaving it on all the time. However, Mosquito night-fighters with Monica would leave it on to lure German night-fighters on to them. They would fly at a Lancaster's cruising speed until they detected a German night-fighter closing on them, then they would switch off Monica, go to full power and swing around coming up behind the contact and get it in their AI.X radar and proceed to try to kill the German. That is one example of how they hunted German night-fighters.
-
Very cool... Which book(s) would have AARs of these?
-
I concur with Scherf that the Mosquito being invisible or even having a reduced radar return is a myth.
As to the German night-fighters fearing Mosquito night-fighters, I have read of them flying low to avoid the Mosquitoes and running into hills, the wreckage being found and attributed to Mosquitoes, increasing the fear all on a night when no Allied night-fighters made any claims.
There are a few other tactical considerations that gave the British night-fighters an almost insurmountable advantage in combat with German night-fighters, even leaving aside the superior performance of the Mosquito. 1) The German night-fighter crew would be looking in a bomber stream for targets, most of which are mostly harmless Lancasters and Halifaxes with some uncatchable Mosquito bombers tossed in and a few sharks, i.e. Mosquito night-fighters all with no way to tell which is which whereas any hostile contact a British night-fighter found was going to be a German night-fighter. 2) Then there was the cat and mouse of electronic warfare. The British had developed a tail warning radar they code named "Monica" to give Lancs and Halibags a warning when a German night-fighter was following them. The Germans quickly figured this out and used Monica as a homing device to lead them to British bombers. The British eventually figured that out and only used it in bursts rather than leaving it on all the time. However, Mosquito night-fighters with Monica would leave it on to lure German night-fighters on to them. They would fly at a Lancaster's cruising speed until they detected a German night-fighter closing on them, then they would switch off Monica, go to full power and swing around coming up behind the contact and get it in their AI.X radar and proceed to try to kill the German. That is one example of how they hunted German night-fighters.
Well since the Mossie isnt that manuverable I would think 110 night fighters would be able to out turn the Mossies. I doubt that the Ju88 crews could. But Hans Jabs did shot down I believe 16 Spitfires in the 110 .
-
moot,
Various books on the Mossie. I pulled that stuff out of my memory.
Well since the Mossie isnt that manuverable I would think 110 night fighters would be able to out turn the Mossies. I doubt that the Ju88 crews could. But Hans Jabs did shot down I believe 16 Spitfires in the 110 .
Fights at night are not turn fights. They are ambushes. The performance that I mentioned was speed and acceleration. The Mosquito NF.Mk 30 could do 424mph at altitude. I don't know of any German night-fighter than could match that until the Me262.
-
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/jun43.html (http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/jun43.html) shows no Mosquito Bombers lost in night rades in June, 1943.
wrongway
-
Well since the Mossie isnt that manuverable I would think 110 night fighters would be able to out turn the Mossies.
What in the world are you talking about?? :O
while the 219 would be a nice addition,any new plane would be,I'd really like to see the 410.
The Mk 103 30 mm guns are reason enough to add this A/C.Myself I'm too scared to fly a plane with only 1 engine and having another german twin would give me another option.
Besides the {hornet} is a murderous plane!!
we really need to see the Vne and CLmax to truely judge the performance of this A/C
-
I concur with Scherf that the Mosquito being invisible or even having a reduced radar return is a myth.
As to the German night-fighters fearing Mosquito night-fighters, I have read of them flying low to avoid the Mosquitoes and running into hills, the wreckage being found and attributed to Mosquitoes, increasing the fear all on a night when no Allied night-fighters made any claims.
There are a few other tactical considerations that gave the British night-fighters an almost insurmountable advantage in combat with German night-fighters, even leaving aside the superior performance of the Mosquito. 1) The German night-fighter crew would be looking in a bomber stream for targets, most of which are mostly harmless Lancasters and Halifaxes with some uncatchable Mosquito bombers tossed in and a few sharks, i.e. Mosquito night-fighters all with no way to tell which is which whereas any hostile contact a British night-fighter found was going to be a German night-fighter. 2) Then there was the cat and mouse of electronic warfare. The British had developed a tail warning radar they code named "Monica" to give Lancs and Halibags a warning when a German night-fighter was following them. The Germans quickly figured this out and used Monica as a homing device to lead them to British bombers. The British eventually figured that out and only used it in bursts rather than leaving it on all the time. However, Mosquito night-fighters with Monica would leave it on to lure German night-fighters on to them. They would fly at a Lancaster's cruising speed until they detected a German night-fighter closing on them, then they would switch off Monica, go to full power and swing around coming up behind the contact and get it in their AI.X radar and proceed to try to kill the German. That is one example of how they hunted German night-fighters.
What in the world are you talking about??
while the 219 would be a nice addition,any new plane would be,I'd really like to see the 410.
The Mk 103 30 mm guns are reason enough to add this A/C.Myself I'm too scared to fly a plane with only 1 engine and having another german twin would give me another option.
Besides the {hornet} is a murderous plane!!
we really need to see the Vne and CLmax to truely judge the performance of this A/C
I was referring to the above post on how Mossies would lure German night fighters posing as bombers and then swinging in behind the following fighter and killing them. Maybe this did work but my bet is not often. Hans Jabs was a 110 pilot who flew the 110 at night. He was a 110 pilot that was able to shot down Spitfires and Hurricanes with that plane. I'm sure that if detected a Mossie would have a very hard time being able to shot him down. So I guess what I'm saying is that Mossies that were detected would have trouble killing 110 night fighters. I'm sure most night kills were on unsuspecting foes on both sides
-
I was referring to the above post on how Mossies would lure German night fighters posing as bombers and then swinging in behind the following fighter and killing them. Maybe this did work but my bet is not often. Hans Jabs was a 110 pilot who flew the 110 at night. He was a 110 pilot that was able to shot down Spitfires and Hurricanes with that plane. I'm sure that if detected a Mossie would have a very hard time being able to shot him down. So I guess what I'm saying is that Mossies that were detected would have trouble killing 110 night fighters. I'm sure most night kills were on unsuspecting foes on both sides
Indeed. And what makes you think he'd detect the Mosquito? The Mossie sees the approaching German night-fighter using Monica, not visual identification. It shuts off Monica, which means the German loses his homing beacon, still far out from having visual contact. As the Mosquito accelerates and turns around the German continues trying to find the bomber that just turned off Monica. Once back on its previous heading the Mosquito attempts to pick up the German night-fighter on its forward mounted AI.X radar and if successful then closes on the German until a visual ID can be made, the German still unaware of the Mosquito's presence as it hunts for the bomber. Once the visual ID is made the Mosquito opens fire from short range with its quad of 20mm cannons without tracer in the belt. If the Mosquito hits the German then the German is most likely shot down, and is in any case aware of the Mosquito.
If you like I can go through the kill list and tell you how many Bf110s the Mosquito shot down. Also, the Bf110 isn't significantly more maneuverable in daylight fighting than the Mossie. FYI.
-
Indeed. And what makes you think he'd detect the Mosquito? The Mossie sees the approaching German night-fighter using Monica, not visual identification. It shuts off Monica, which means the German loses his homing beacon, still far out from having visual contact. As the Mosquito accelerates and turns around the German continues trying to find the bomber that just turned off Monica. Once back on its previous heading the Mosquito attempts to pick up the German night-fighter on its forward mounted AI.X radar and if successful then closes on the German until a visual ID can be made, the German still unaware of the Mosquito's presence as it hunts for the bomber. Once the visual ID is made the Mosquito opens fire from short range with its quad of 20mm cannons without tracer in the belt. If the Mosquito hits the German then the German is most likely shot down, and is in any case aware of the Mosquito.
If you like I can go through the kill list and tell you how many Bf110s the Mosquito shot down. Also, the Bf110 isn't significantly more maneuverable in daylight fighting than the Mossie. FYI.
I guess you regard German night fighter crews as stupid. German a/c radar systems were far more advanced than Monica so I would think the advantage would be theirs, Heck P-51's had these sensors in thier tails late in the war as well, from my conversations with P-51 pilots was it was more of an anoyance then helpful the range of said radar was to short to give the pilot enough notice that there was a enemy plane behind them . It was basicly just turned off. Also German radars didn't need another radar to alert them of a bogie in the area so turning Monica off would in my estimation alert the German crew that something was up. There were 3 guys in a 110 and besides the radar operator there were 2 pair of trained eyes scanning the skiesone scanning behind them. So getting behing a plane with a trained rear gunner looking for you would be a tall order.
-
I guess you regard German night fighter crews as stupid. German a/c radar systems were far more advanced than Monica so I would think the advantage would be theirs, Heck P-51's had these sensors in thier tails late in the war as well, from my conversations with P-51 pilots was it was more of an anoyance then helpful the range of said radar was to short to give the pilot enough notice that there was a enemy plane behind them . It was basicly just turned off. Also German radars didn't need another radar to alert them of a bogie in the area so turning Monica off would in my estimation alert the German crew that something was up. There were 3 guys in a 110 and besides the radar operator there were 2 pair of trained eyes scanning the skiesone scanning behind them. So getting behing a plane with a trained rear gunner looking for you would be a tall order.
I am not talking about theories on what may or may not have happened. I am telling you a tactic that was used successfully. I think you grossly overestimate the capabilities of all WWII radar. The Mosquito is question isn't relying on Monica to find the German, it is using it as a lure to bring the German to it.
I am not going to discuss this with you if you insist on holding fanboy images of how things were.
-
I never got round to uploading the images, i'll do it in the morning.
-
Very cool... Which book(s) would have AARs of these?
There's some good ones in "The Mosquito Log" by Alexander McKee. You can also try "Moskitopanik" or "The Men Who Flew The Mosquito' by Martin Bowman, though I thiink he writes by stringing photocopies together.
I also have a Combat Report or two if you like, think I've got one from a "Mahmoud" sorite (string Luftie along, turn behind) though I'm not completely positive.
-
Found the Mahmoud sortie one (though, from memory, the actual turn was called the Whiting Maneuver, think it's described in Most Secret War).
Paint and covering were burnt entirely off DZ757, and aircraft was later hit by flak, its port engine being put out, but was able to return to base with the aid of searchlights, which lit a path to base. The Mosquito had been previously damaged by flak, being hit in the starboard engine, and had been returning to base when Ladbrooke identified a contact to the rear. Three times Cybulski had chopped throttles and pulled up, causing the e/a to overshoot, and was on the e/a's tail when he found himself faced with the same maneuover, and was about to overshoot. "So I pulled right back and closed the throttles. Just as we were about to stall, I put the nose down. And there he was, sitting right out in front of us. I remember aiming our four cannon and the machine guns right at where his starboard wing tank should be and letting fly."
The e/a exploded, blinding Cybulski, and Ladbrooke took over the controls. The Mosquito was "completely enveloped in flames" and was dived at full throttle for 4,000 feet to extinguish the fire.Patrol time 20.12-00.53, time of claim 23.40.
They had taken off from Coleby Grange shortly after 8 p.m. to make a Mahmoud patrol between Zuyder Zee and Meppen. Except for some heavy flak, a concentration of searchlights and jamming of the A/1 • set, the 90-minutes patrol was uneventful. Homeward bound, Ladbrook got a radar contact, and despite jamming, held it until he and his pilot caught sight of a Do.217 flying east. As the enemy pilot went into a steep climb the night fighter closed rapidly to deliver a three-second burst. "The e.a. immediately exploded with a terrific flash and descended enveloped in flames. Burning petrol and oil flew back onto the Mosquito, scorching the fuselage from nose to tail, the port wing inboard of the engine, the bottom of the starboard wing, the port tailplane and the rudder, from which the fabric was tom away. Pieces of the e.a. struck the port oil cooler, resulting in the loss of oil and making it necessary to shut down the engine ... The pilot was completely blinded by the explosion and it was necessary for the navigator to take control of the aircraft for approximately five minutes until F/L Cybulski regained normal vision ... Course was set for base and after a remarkable 250-mile flight on one engine with aircraft seriously damaged".
DZ757, RA-Q of 410 Squadron, F/L Martin Czybulski and F/O H.H. Ladbrooke.
My source notes are Czybulslki's DFC citation and: Location and Mosquito registration from "de Havilland Mosquito". Squadron letter from an account by Cybulski in "Flying Under Fire, Volume 2", compiled by William J. Wheeler, in which Cybulski himself says this was a Mahmoud sortie and that the crew "found out later" that the e/a was an Me 410. Date from an original photo showing crew & damaged aircraft with hand-written commentary. Fighter Command War Diaries Volume 4 gives location as near Ijmuiden. Time details from http://bb.1asphost.com/lesbutler/tony/tonywood.htm . Long paragraph of details from http://www.rcaf.com/410squadron/410eng1-3.htm .
I don't have a positive ID for the German aircraft - will have to try to get Michael Balss' book on NJ losses.
There's also a good page on a rare daylight encounter with an He 219 at this page:
http://www.flensted.eu.com/g1944085.shtml
The Mosquito actually claimed another "LeO 45" - seems that one managed to get the ditch.
-
"No Bomber Command Mosquitoes were lost in June, 1943, thus it isn't on the list."
Erm, it would be decent to put a zero for that month then, otherwise it indicates that the data is simply missing...
"Well since the Mossie isnt that manuverable I would think 110 night fighters would be able to out turn the Mossies."
According to one German nightfighter pilot that was not the case. In his opinion the NF 110G was severely hampered by the NF equipment and was badly outperformed by the NF Mossie.
-C+
PS. If you guys have valid reliable data available why don't you put it in Wiki but instead always whine how unreliable it is as an information source?
-
Great research Scherf :salute :salute :salute
-
No worries. Got the Combat Reports for the Mosquito and the Mustangs in the Denmark He 219 encounter around here somewhere, let me see if I can put up a link.
-
Try this:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/crs.zip
-
Try this:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/crs.zip
Thanks for posting those. They were interesting to read.
-
I am not talking about theories on what may or may not have happened. I am telling you a tactic that was used successfully. I think you grossly overestimate the capabilities of all WWII radar. The Mosquito is question isn't relying on Monica to find the German, it is using it as a lure to bring the German to it.
I am not going to discuss this with you if you insist on holding fanboy images of how things were.
Then don't because I know what I'm talking about......
I have a business and have had for the last 15 years based on military history. I have met hundreds of WW2 veteran's at symposiums that I either attended or was part of organizing. I am long time friends with at least 15-20 aces from WW2, from Britian , Germany and the US and am on a first name basis with too many to name. I have had on many occasions had long sit down conversations with them on everything you can think of, I know their family's and even had some of them selling their books at various air shows and other venues under my banner. I have hundreds of books form all aspects of WW2 history and have read all more then 3 times. This to me isn't just a business it was and is my hobby and interst through all of my life. I have probally one of the largest and rarest autograph collections pertaining to WW2 and really all aspects of aviation, naval and armor in the world. I have met many authors and have had long discussions with them about our love for WW2 history. I'm not saying I am the end all to military history but I can tell you that my nose is in a book regarding WW2 year round. I have read many books on many topics and I have come to realize one thing and that there is no one book that is all encompassing on any subject. So making reference to a book you may have read means little to me because I have read 20 to 30 books on one subject and have come to realize that you have to discern what's correct or what isn't based on what you have learned on your own. I have heard stories from many pilots that I have yet to even read about in any book, stories that debunk many myths and many that back them up. I am very good friends with Johnnie Johnsons son and have heard countless stories and thoughts about him from when he was flying. He has personally told me that some books that contain material written about his dad is bogus and that it never happened. I am not denying that Mossie crews had their tactics on defeating German night fighters but this was such a small and relatively isolated occurrence that it really had no bearing on the overall outcome of the German night fighter force. Yes the Mosquito was an awesome plane but the light your shinning on it makes it sound like it stopped the Germans cold. If it did then there wouldn't be the likes of guys like Snauffer, Zoerner, Hoffman, Streib, Drewes, Jabs and on and on. The simple fact is that British night fighters did very little to deter the German night fighting operations.
-
I have managed to scan the images from 'Fighter Command Losses of the Wecond World War' by Norman Franks.
There were only 2 night fighter losses, on the 20/21 and 27/28 of July. If the images are too large i'll resize them at a later date.
(http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh33/thrila/fightercommandlosses1.jpg)
(http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh33/thrila/fightercommandlosses2.jpg)
(http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh33/thrila/fightercommandlosses3.jpg)
(http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh33/thrila/fightercommandlosses4.jpg)
-
Then don't because I know what I'm talking about......
I have a business and have had for the last 15 years based on military history. I have met hundreds of WW2 veteran's at symposiums that I either attended or was part of organizing. I am long time friends with at least 15-20 aces from WW2, from Britian , Germany and the US and am on a first name basis with too many to name. I have had on many occasions had long sit down conversations with them on everything you can think of, I know their family's and even had some of them selling their books at various air shows and other venues under my banner. I have hundreds of books form all aspects of WW2 history and have read all more then 3 times. This to me isn't just a business it was and is my hobby and interst through all of my life. I have probally one of the largest and rarest autograph collections pertaining to WW2 and really all aspects of aviation, naval and armor in the world. I have met many authors and have had long discussions with them about our love for WW2 history. I'm not saying I am the end all to military history but I can tell you that my nose is in a book regarding WW2 year round. I have read many books on many topics and I have come to realize one thing and that there is no one book that is all encompassing on any subject. So making reference to a book you may have read means little to me because I have read 20 to 30 books on one subject and have come to realize that you have to discern what's correct or what isn't based on what you have learned on your own. I have heard stories from many pilots that I have yet to even read about in any book, stories that debunk many myths and many that back them up. I am very good friends with Johnnie Johnsons son and have heard countless stories and thoughts about him from when he was flying. He has personally told me that some books that contain material written about his dad is bogus and that it never happened. I am not denying that Mossie crews had their tactics on defeating German night fighters but this was such a small and relatively isolated occurrence that it really had no bearing on the overall outcome of the German night fighter force. Yes the Mosquito was an awesome plane but the light your shinning on it makes it sound like it stopped the Germans cold. If it did then there wouldn't be the likes of guys like Snauffer, Zoerner, Hoffman, Streib, Drewes, Jabs and on and on. The simple fact is that British night fighters did very little to deter the German night fighting operations.
No, radar equipped Mosquitoes weren't even allowed to operated over German territory until late in the war, a decision that was nearly criminal. Once it did it had a significant impact on German night-fighter operations.
Your comments about the Bf110 and turn radius are what triggered my perception of you as a fanboy. Night-fighter combat was entirely about cat and mouse work and ambushes.
-
I have read that daytime fighter sweeps over known night fighter bases did more to the German night fighter wing then did any air to air conflict. I believe Hans Jabs was jumped during the daylight on a ferry flight carring a side of bacon by Geffory Page and his squad resulting in not only Jabs 110 crash landing and losing his bacon but Jabs scoring 2 Spitfire kills before skidding in, in fact I believe it was at a reunion of sorts in England that Page overheard Jabs telling the story and Page stepped in to claim the kill. He sent Jabs a side of bacon that Christmas for the loss of his wartime booty.
-
What the offensive night-fighter Mosquito operations did wasn't so much shoot down mass numbers of German night-fighters as add the fear of the hunted to them rather than just being the hunters.
-
What the offensive night-fighter Mosquito operations did wasn't so much shoot down mass numbers of German night-fighters as add the fear of the hunted to them rather than just being the hunters.
Correct ....it was always in their minds but experienced night fighter crews went about their business as usual. You have to remember that these guys homes were getting bombed both day and night and their family's were being killed. I don't know about you but if my family was being put in harms way by these raids I would be like a pit bull in the skies. The same went for the ground pounders. When they saw what the Russians were doing to their captured women and children
on their advance into German territory they started fighting for them rather then themselves. At the battle of the Seelow Heights the Russians took unthinkable losses at the hands of the Germans because they knew they were the last defense for the civilians behind them.
This whole thing started about the He219 and reference to it's bogus claims. I was just trying to shed a little light that in fact the plane did have some success. About the 6 Mossie kills being correct I don't know but it wasn't a stretch that in fact some Mossies could have been downed by He219's. Maybe, maybe not. The He219 could have become with further development a first class night fighter not just in my opinion but by pilots that flew the plane. Like I said I know many aces and they get upset by authors that put words or misquote them, that's why many write their own. Now if I read a book on Bud Anderson and then read another by someone else I would be inclined to believe Bud's words rather then some dweeb who says different. My responce was based on Werner Strieb's own words concerning the 219 and his thoughts on it. I apologize if I came across any different.
-
Tha-rillllllllllll-laaaaaaaaaa:
If you've still got the book handy, can you check something for me? I'm trying to verify if HX852 of 264 Squadron was lost on 26/27 September, or 27/28 September.
Cheers,
Scherf
-
Yeppers, still have it- it was lost on an 27/28th sept on an intruder to Rheine.
-
Wow, and I thought this topic would be about the addition of the He219/Me410. :noid
-
Yeppers, still have it- it was lost on an 27/28th sept on an intruder to Rheine.
Cheers mate.
-
Cheers mate.
I did some extensive research on the six mossies and have not come to anything concrete about their demise. I did find out about a few He219 pilots that were successful in obtaining 2 digit kills in the Owl, however some were shot down multiple times while flying the plane.
-
I think the He 219 is good (think of one thing that the Germans don`t do good) but Me 410 can do a heck of alot more. Lets just say if they add the 410 I will be the happiest man alive. :D :D
-
This thread goes into some detail on the 410 and 219. It's pretty clear the He 219 did 360 mph at military power. WEP speed is still unknown, but it would obviously have been more.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,264722.0.html
-
With no anntennae or flame dampers.
-
So when they bring the Me 410 Hornisse to the game will the ICON read: HORNI ? "Help! HORNI on my six!" :x
+1.5K
-
Does anyone have pics or video of the WWII NF radars in use? I've been looking as a side interest for months, so far the closest I've gotten is an accurate description of a number of different types of American radar scopes (A Scope, B Scope, ect). I also saw some of the British bomber kits, like the H2S, which was used to show what was on the ground. Cities showed up as bright patches of light. Due to the way that the display worked, a later add-on called fishpond was made that showed the returns that were not displayed as the ground, such as the relatively stable blips of the other bombers and, more importantly, fast moving German night fighters. I'm quite curious as to how the German sets worked. I always laugh when I read about how German NF crews shat bricks whenever they flew at a cloud of Window, as it reflected the speed they were approaching it at, giving them outrageous velocity readings.
And I REALLY wanna see how the NF262 was operated.
Also, I'm just saying here, that maybe the mossie kills were bombers or pathfinders, rather than night fighters.
-
Also, I'm just saying here, that maybe the mossie kills were bombers or pathfinders, rather than night fighters.
Of course they were bombers or pathfinders. The losses posted earlier in this thread were Bomber Command Mossie losses.
-
i would much prefer to see the 410 added, it reminds me of the mossie. Great looking a/c