>de havilland mosquito. >could carry 4,000lbs of bombs

>de havilland mosquito
>could carry 4,000lbs of bombs
>at such a high speed that non-accident combat losses were tiny
So what was the point of this big vulnerable skywhale then? At least the B24 and Lancaster justified their status as big four-engine bombers with bomb loads twice and thrice the B17’s

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This thread again?

    One mosquito required far more maintenance than a B-17/24 and engines with huge demand for the fighters that destroyed the Luftwaffe when Germany maxxed its production.

    Period.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >One mosquito required far more maintenance than a B-17/24
      But one Mosquito did far more effective damage than any four engined heavy bomber

      https://i.imgur.com/ZtX680R.jpg

      >de havilland mosquito
      >could carry 4,000lbs of bombs
      >at such a high speed that non-accident combat losses were tiny
      So what was the point of this big vulnerable skywhale then? At least the B24 and Lancaster justified their status as big four-engine bombers with bomb loads twice and thrice the B17’s

      >what was the point of this
      They were there first
      You fight with the kit you have
      The Mosquito was a mid-war development and as many of them were produced as possible, but the other production lines were at full chat and the Mosquito was just too useful in too many roles

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >But one Mosquito did far more effective damage than any four engined heavy bomber
        Dimwit take.
        What's more effective:
        30,000 bombers (total engine life of 4x30 million hours) and 15,000 P-51s
        Or
        7500 Mosquitos (total engine life of 2x2 million hours -being optimistic-)
        The USAF and the RAF staff weren't stupid. England didn't have good turbocharged radials so were forced to use the fruits of the Schneider Trophy: Merlin.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          edit: didn't have a RR radial, the Bristol Hercules was excellent (but too large for most fighters) but Bristol didn't have the industrial base to make as many radials as RR.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          In part because dropping a singular 4,000lb bomb did less to destroy large industrial areas than a string of 500lb bombs. Also, to the best of my knowledge Mossies got low level bombsights, not the kind useful for dropping at altitude. However, the primary objective of much of the Allied bombing campaign was attrition of the Luftwaffe in anticipation for the invasion. Being able to run away from Germans didn't attrite them

          Midwit "muh big bomb gooder than precision" thirdie mindset. Remember to poop on the toilet, Rajeesh.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So what ARE we allowed to talk about??
      >The year is 2042
      >The following topics are banned on /k/:
      >Planes
      >Sherman tanks
      "Hey guys, OP here, what's the easiest type of ammunition you can balance on your erect penis?"

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >So what ARE we allowed to talk about??
        anything that isnt spammed over and over again

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >A board primarily for gun owners talking about gun ownership
        sound terrible

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        HAHAHAHAHAHA

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >One mosquito required far more maintenance than a B-17
      more maintenance than a giant plane full of holes, 2 Wright Cyclones each with a 20mm lodged in the crankcase and a third Cyclone sprinkled over an acre of Westphalia?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Fine, now take into account that you would have lost 100% of the mosquitoes (engines TBO) after 250 flight hours.
        During the war only 10,000 of 30,000 B-17/24 bombers were lost to accidents and the enemy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >3 sentences
      >5 sentence lines
      Go back to plebbit, you illiterate moron.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can turn the other crew into mechanics. Taking the two pilots you could crew two mosquitos and have eight mechanics. Eight seems a bit low to take care of two craft so we will have the pilots alternate sorties therefore reducing the wear on the crafts and giving the ground crews more time to spend on a machine instead of rushing to get two done at once.
      The mosquito is a cheaper frame to produce in both cost and manpower hours. The engines are a non issue because the singular B-17 has enough engine for the two aforementioned mosquitos.
      This raises a bigger point. You lose a B-17 and that is 10 men, four engines, and an airframe lost. You lose a mosquito and you lose a man, two engines, and a frame. But his buddy will be back the very next night for revenge unlike the missing bomber in The Box reducing coverage and risking other bombers.

      Mosquitos are a no brainer.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >singular B-17 has enough engine for the two aforementioned mosquitos.
        No words..................................

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You lose a mosquito and you lose a man
        Mosquito has 2 crew

        https://i.imgur.com/ueVAAMj.png

        Post the RR source for 250 hours TBO.

        >R-1830 by far the most common engine of USAF's 4-engine bombers

        >1,500 hours
        That's a civilian aircraft figure.
        No bomber is doing that in 1944.

        250 hours is a commonly-cited figure for combat fighter Merlin V-12s, but Hushkit gives 240 hours. The figures have to be dug out from WW2 books, but you can find a few mentions in forums.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And a mossie isn't a fighter. Sure occasionally they had to redline it like fighter, but most missions just the fast cruise is enough to make interception difficult. So I'd assume the Mossies could get much more out of their engines.

          Also the Ameritard is literally claiming civilian performance maintenance intervals for wartime service lol

          You can give an American a cart full of shit, stick an American flag into it and he'll slurp it all up and claim it's the best food on the planet.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >muh civil
          Civil/airliner transport was 2500-3000 hours moron.

          >250 hours is a commonly-cited figure for combat fighter Merlin V-12s, b
          I gave the official USAF TBOs (for the period 42-43) using the same criteria for all engines

          STFU imbecile.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I gave the official USAF TBOs (for the period 42-43) using the same criteria for all engines
            why are you a lying homosexual?

            https://i.imgur.com/ChtX32a.png

            I don't really understand the argument about crew losses.

            Sure 10 vs 2 is worse from a humanitarian POV but in terms of capability losses the pilot and navigator of the mosquito (especially the navigators who were the most skilled and experienced in bomber command with specialist training in RNAV and pathfinding) were worth 50x 19 year old ball gunners and radio operators straight off the Idaho potato farm with 3 weeks training.

            >10 vs 2 is worse from a humanitarian POV
            even from a purely utilitarian standpoint, that's 8 dudes who could be infantry
            and actually only 4 B-17 crew were pure gunners, the others had other duties e.g. engineer, bombardier, radio operator

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >lying
              pic rel and read the dates. The closer to 44-45 period the better (the comparisons for the bomb raids with pumped up mosquitoes and B-17G)

              You're showing the chart for 42's TBOs. Spits Merlins could get 500 hours during 43-45 if they weren't "RAF levels of boost". But RR couldn't maintain the engine life as the war progressed and they increased boost.

              Do you understand that? Manifold pressure is the main limiting factor for engine reliability and durability. Even the R-2800 had an abysmal TBO if they're over boosted.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the point is that the difference between fighter Merlins and bomber Wrights were not as wide as you imagined, and that we've now gone down from the utterly farcical

                >But one Mosquito did far more effective damage than any four engined heavy bomber
                Dimwit take.
                What's more effective:
                30,000 bombers (total engine life of 4x30 million hours) and 15,000 P-51s
                Or
                7500 Mosquitos (total engine life of 2x2 million hours -being optimistic-)
                The USAF and the RAF staff weren't stupid. England didn't have good turbocharged radials so were forced to use the fruits of the Schneider Trophy: Merlin.

                >B-17s COULD DO 1,000 HOURS TBO MMKAY!!
                >MOSQUITOS COULD ONLY DO 260 HOURS OPTIMISTICALLY!!
                that the thread began with

                Dimwit take, forsooth.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the point is that the difference between fighter Merlins and bomber Wrights were not as wide as you imagined, and that we've now gone down from the utterly farcical
                So a Merlin boosted to +18 psi last 400 hours BO........................................................(10 hours later)...........................

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >10 hours
                prove it (you can't)

                that is why it's well known that a Spitfire Merlin lasted about 240 hours on actual operations
                bomber engines on actual ops also did not last the figures listed above, fyi

                and here is one other way a Mosquito beats a slower bomber - owing to its speed and not needing to formate in massive bomber streams which required waiting for squadrons to join up, a bombing mission to Berlin could be completed in under 5 hours, whereas an equivalent heavy bomber mission took 8 hours or more

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Mosquito has 2 crew
          You can stuff a woman in there and keep within the 1 man casualty budget

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >female navigator

            They'd end up bombing Madrid not Hamburg.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don't really understand the argument about crew losses.

        Sure 10 vs 2 is worse from a humanitarian POV but in terms of capability losses the pilot and navigator of the mosquito (especially the navigators who were the most skilled and experienced in bomber command with specialist training in RNAV and pathfinding) were worth 50x 19 year old ball gunners and radio operators straight off the Idaho potato farm with 3 weeks training.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Buddy, I jumped out of a B17 and spent two hours talking about the engines with the crew

      They worked their ass off nonstop for every hour they flew it, and they weren't even doing the proper amount of maint.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Dumbass, those engines were being used for Lancasters too.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So? So what?
        I already mentioned that in my following posts. And the comparison is fast bi-engine vs larger bomber with less powerful engines and from a different manufacturer.

        Your point is perfectly off topic.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    how effective were the myriad of guns on this thing compared to being able to carry more bombs?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not very. Bomber gunners in general during WWII just never really hit anything. The waist gunners were probably the most redundant and could have been removed

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What if instead of that huge 4000lb bomb you wanted to drop numerous smaller bombs? Well the best you can fit is 2,000lb worth of 500lb bombs. What if you want to drop those bombs on a Romanian oil field? good luck finding a way to do that, you have half the range of the B-17 to work with.
        And all of the reasons others have mentioned.

        The claims of those gunners were always exaggerated much as the claims of anti-aircraft gunners were, fighter pilots, and pretty much any group shooting at aircraft at some point in time. That was just kind of how things were and it isn't much different these days. I'm sure that even given their low statistical probability of scoring a kill the total number of German fighters they brought down would still be a sizeable number just because of the sheer scale of the strategic bombing campaign.
        I'd agree that the waist guns were not worth the trouble. I forget if those gunners had any other tasks besides for that. If they did serve another role maybe you could just have one guy who could man whatever gun was needed. Chances are if you have fighters making a run at your bomber from both sides simultaneously you're kind of fricked regardless of the fire you're putting out.
        Late war when the Luftwaffe couldn't do much of anything I recall reading that the bombers regularly flew with just one or no waist gunners.
        One factor people seem to forget about the defensive guns in arguments is the simple fact that a pilot with a huge huge number of .50 caliber tracers flying his direction is likely to have his aim disrupted because pilots tend not to like the idea of dying.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I'm sure that even given their low statistical probability of scoring a kill the total number of German fighters they brought down would still be a sizeable number
          I’m sure it would be but still, bomber gunners weren’t ever able to do much against a fighter bent on shooting them down. There’s a website that lists air aces where bomber gunner aces are counted too and a select few B17/B24 gunners got 5 or more Germans confirmed. The tail gunner of the Memphis Belle ended up getting like 12, which I’m sure even if it was exaggerated was a big reason the Belle crew got through their tour in one piece (he later romped around China with Nationalist guerillas fighting the Japanese lol)
          Nonetheless, the western front’s air war was to Luftwaffe pilots what the eastern front was to Whermacht foot grunts, the big nightmare meat-grinder while the other front was a picnic in comparison. Diving into a formation of 1,2, 300 B17s was a nightmarish task.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I’m sure it would be but still, bomber gunners weren’t ever able to do much against a fighter bent on shooting them down.
            bomber gunners limited the ranges and engagement angles enemy fighters could take
            enemy fighters would need to open up outside the effective range of the defensive armament and thus reduce accuracy

            the tail gunner was important because it covered the most vulnerable angle, a tail-on attack has the least relative motion between a fighter and the bomber presenting an easy target for the front-facing guns of a fighter
            so having a tail gunner forced enemy fighters to take side-on attacks
            same concept applies to the chin gunner and ball gunner

            it forced the germans to come up with new tactics to avoid the interlocking fields of fire of the bomber guns to limit the odds of getting shot down, and these high speed side passes intended to rake the sides of the bombers were less deadly than going for a head-on or tail attack due to the higher deflection

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >One factor people seem to forget about the defensive guns in arguments is the simple fact that a pilot with a huge huge number of .50 caliber tracers flying his direction is likely to have his aim disrupted because pilots tend not to like the idea of dying.

          This right here. People always seem to forget air defense and defense in general doesn't require you to kill the attacker, just to get them to stop attacking. Even a single pintal mounted .50 can make a pilot blink on the attack run and miss

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Mostly, they were suppressive fire.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      tail gunners were quite effective against night fighters since being shot at generally made them back off even if it wasn't that close.

      Except for that time the Monica tail gun radar let nightfighters easily home in on bombers.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Late war single-engine carrier bombers like the XTBD2 could carry 8000lbs. And so it seems that later designs may be superior to earlier designs.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In part because dropping a singular 4,000lb bomb did less to destroy large industrial areas than a string of 500lb bombs. Also, to the best of my knowledge Mossies got low level bombsights, not the kind useful for dropping at altitude. However, the primary objective of much of the Allied bombing campaign was attrition of the Luftwaffe in anticipation for the invasion. Being able to run away from Germans didn't attrite them

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Also, to the best of my knowledge Mossies got low level bombsights, not the kind useful for dropping at altitude.

      No.8 Group Mosquitos had Oboe sets onboard letting them bomb pretty accurately with 4000lb bombs by strategic bombing standards but it still wasn't extremely accurate like the low level marker flares they used to pathfind for other bombers.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is the correct answer. Heavy bombers were more useful as bait to draw out, engage and destroy the Luftwaffe prior to invasion. Certainly more than any effect they might of had on German industry.

      We knew back then and have had demonstrated many times since that dropping a whole lot of ordinance on your enemy doesn't actually achieve a great deal.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >dropping a singular 4,000lb bomb did less to destroy large industrial areas than a string of 500lb bombs
      exactly the opposite
      >Mossies got low level bombsights, not the kind useful for dropping at altitude
      because low level bombing was far more accurate than "oh 80% of the bombs landed off target lmao"

      https://i.imgur.com/Sa5y8xX.jpg

      a 4000lb bomb isn't much when you are slinging it from 15,000ft.

      There's a reason the Mosquito Light Night Strike Force (which usually just carried a single 4000lb "Cookie" and 2 wing drop tanks) was confined to trolling the Germans with the help of their radar equipped Mosquito Nightfighter brothers like disrupting speeches by Goring or using chaff to pretend to be a much larger bomber force headed for Berlin managing to draw off every night fighter in Germany while the Lancasters bombed the shit out of Peenemunde.

      >confined to trolling
      not at all, they attacked factories, railway yards and bridges like every other bomber, and in fact were called in to attack targets that the heavies for some reason or other could not get at
      >Peenemunde
      Mosquitos bombed V launch sites as well

      >But one Mosquito did far more effective damage than any four engined heavy bomber
      Dimwit take.
      What's more effective:
      30,000 bombers (total engine life of 4x30 million hours) and 15,000 P-51s
      Or
      7500 Mosquitos (total engine life of 2x2 million hours -being optimistic-)
      The USAF and the RAF staff weren't stupid. England didn't have good turbocharged radials so were forced to use the fruits of the Schneider Trophy: Merlin.

      "...the Mosquito / Lancaster value ratio. A figure of 3 to 1 is sometimes quoted. The Lancaster cost 3 times as much as a Mosquito and had a crew over 3 times as big. It carried 3 times the bomb load, but for only 1/3rd of the sorties [because it had] an average tour of 20 sorties per crew compared with 60 for the Mosquitoes. ... [Furthermore] the Lancaster crews had an average experience of 10 trips at any one time and were thus almost always half-trained. The Mosquito crews had an average of about 30+ trips and had a far more satisfactory performance. For on 'Oboe' Mosquito, carrying a 4,000lb bomb, the ratio would be almost 50 to 1."
      >Martin Bowman

      >could carry 4,000lbs of bombs
      how far? the B-17 could take off in England, bomb Germany and then land in North Africa.

      the Mosquito could take off in England, bomb Berlin, and then land in England.

      Fine, now take into account that you would have lost 100% of the mosquitoes (engines TBO) after 250 flight hours.
      During the war only 10,000 of 30,000 B-17/24 bombers were lost to accidents and the enemy.

      lol no
      see above

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Lancaster
        >A figure of 3 to 1 is sometimes quoted. The Lancaster cost 3 times
        >4 Merlins (with less boost than the 2x/7x)
        Now tell me how that's related to B-24/17?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          why don't you tell us where these engine life figures come from?

          >But one Mosquito did far more effective damage than any four engined heavy bomber
          Dimwit take.
          What's more effective:
          30,000 bombers (total engine life of 4x30 million hours) and 15,000 P-51s
          Or
          7500 Mosquitos (total engine life of 2x2 million hours -being optimistic-)
          The USAF and the RAF staff weren't stupid. England didn't have good turbocharged radials so were forced to use the fruits of the Schneider Trophy: Merlin.

          >30,000 bombers (total engine life of 4x30 million hours)
          >a B-17 engine lasts 1,000 hours
          come now

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >why don't you tell us where these engine life figures come from?
            Why don't you stop being a moron that talks about different bombers.

            It's trivial to find bs texts, I'll limit to the official figures -that ignores the different operation conditions*** between a mosquito and a B-24/17-.
            Go to read about the Merlin's development and radials.

            >*** inb4 some moron post a peace time TBO for the later and more reliable Merlins 620s, same for airliner radials

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              > official figures -that ignores the different operation conditions*** between a mosquito and a B-24/17
              so it's not actually 1,000 hours per engine, eh?
              Merlins average out at 250 hours (Rolls Royce manual)
              both our figures are from official texts which average out operating conditions

              so at best from an engine life perspective, 1 Mosquito has the same engine life hours as a B-17
              now add in the other parts of the B-17 machinery, loss rates, lives of crew...

              >the Mosquito could take off in England, bomb Berlin, and then land in England.
              With what bomb load?

              4,000lb bomb, duh
              from 15 July to 15 August 1944, Mosquitos dropped 336 4,000lb bombs on Berlin

              B17s could carry 14,800 lbs of bombs
              They regularly carried 6,000-8,000
              The extra weight went to fuel so they could line up in formation and fly fast at 25-30,000 feet
              Lancasters couldn't do that which is why they basically did nothing but bomb civilians
              A Mosquito could not carry 4000 lbs of bombs to the places heavy bombers could carry 8000 lbs of bombs

              >Lancasters couldn't do that which is why they basically did nothing but bomb civilians
              *laughs in 617 Sqdn*
              >A Mosquito could not carry 4000 lbs of bombs to the places heavy bombers could carry 8000 lbs of bombs
              nope
              a Mosquito could carry 4,000lb of bombs to Berlin and back, and that's good enough for anywhere in the ETO
              a B-17 on a Berlin mission from south England would carry 6,000lb of bombs

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >now add in the other parts of the B-17 machinery, loss rates, lives of crew...
                What machinery? the landing gear? kek. The limiting factor during the war were the engines. Crew? gunners are easier to replace, pilots, navigators, etc are harder but a fast bomber pilot is another matter.

                >so it's not actually 1,000 hours per engine, eh?
                >Merlins average out at 250 hours (Rolls Royce manual)
                That's TBO for 42-3 and without details of conditions, I posted that pic to avoid the unnecessary comparison between different sources with different maintenance criteria.
                You can search the service manual for bombers stating TBOs from "1200" to "1500" for bombers like the B-24 and Catalina but idc.

                >so at best from an engine life perspective, 1 Mosquito has the same engine life hours as a B-17
                650/(150 * 2) = ~2
                And that ignoring the fact that they wouldn't the production of R1830/R1820 to make V12 during the war.

                To be fast the Mosquito needed far higher boost than a 4 engine bomber, that matters even more than the complexity of the engine.
                It was common for fighter engines require overhaul in less than 100 hours. Earlier Merlins/Bomber Merlins had TBO of ~500 hours.

                But the OP's comparison was Mosquito vs B-17s
                And rely on Mosquito speed (and therefore engine wear) makes little sense strategically. Max speed is reached at 'high altitude' so bombing accuracy isn't good and if you fly lower you lose the altitude advantage that the B-17/24 with escorts had to destroy the Luftwaffe. Intercepting fast planes is easy if they don't fly at 9km.

                TL;DR no. Strategically the 4-engine bombers were better and forced the Luftwaffe to fight in unfavorable conditions

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                wouldn't stop the production*

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >650/(150 * 2) = ~2
                >a B-17 runs on only one engine
                nuff sed

                Damn the bomber command must have been moronic then to not exclusively use a light bomber for strategic bombing. Or could it be that Mosquitos simply aren't up to the task when you need strategic bombing?

                alternatively:
                >You fight with the kit you have
                >The Mosquito was a mid-war development and as many of them were produced as possible, but the other production lines were at full chat

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >he doesn't understand a basic shortcut
                For 650 flight hours you need 4 engines in a bomber and nearly 9 for a Mosquito.
                Do you understand now?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                either you forgot to apply shortcut for the Mosquito as well, or you're still assuming a Mosquito Merlin lasts only 150 hours and that's just not true; the average is 250 hours
                running a 2-engine Mosquito for 650 hours takes roughly 5 engines to a B-17's 4 engines

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >a Mosquito Merlin lasts only 150 hours and that's just not true; the average is 250 hours
                As I said above (

                >now add in the other parts of the B-17 machinery, loss rates, lives of crew...
                What machinery? the landing gear? kek. The limiting factor during the war were the engines. Crew? gunners are easier to replace, pilots, navigators, etc are harder but a fast bomber pilot is another matter.

                >so it's not actually 1,000 hours per engine, eh?
                >Merlins average out at 250 hours (Rolls Royce manual)
                That's TBO for 42-3 and without details of conditions, I posted that pic to avoid the unnecessary comparison between different sources with different maintenance criteria.
                You can search the service manual for bombers stating TBOs from "1200" to "1500" for bombers like the B-24 and Catalina but idc.

                >so at best from an engine life perspective, 1 Mosquito has the same engine life hours as a B-17
                650/(150 * 2) = ~2
                And that ignoring the fact that they wouldn't the production of R1830/R1820 to make V12 during the war.

                To be fast the Mosquito needed far higher boost than a 4 engine bomber, that matters even more than the complexity of the engine.
                It was common for fighter engines require overhaul in less than 100 hours. Earlier Merlins/Bomber Merlins had TBO of ~500 hours.

                But the OP's comparison was Mosquito vs B-17s
                And rely on Mosquito speed (and therefore engine wear) makes little sense strategically. Max speed is reached at 'high altitude' so bombing accuracy isn't good and if you fly lower you lose the altitude advantage that the B-17/24 with escorts had to destroy the Luftwaffe. Intercepting fast planes is easy if they don't fly at 9km.

                TL;DR no. Strategically the 4-engine bombers were better and forced the Luftwaffe to fight in unfavorable conditions

                )
                > I posted that pic to avoid the unnecessary comparison between different sources with different maintenance criteria.

                Or should I use the TBO 1200-1500 hours for radials in bombers?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Or should I use the TBO 1200-1500 hours for radials in bombers?
                lol that's science fiction for WW2
                what source are you using for that holy frick

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Post the RR source for 250 hours TBO.

                >R-1830 by far the most common engine of USAF's 4-engine bombers

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the Mosquito could take off in England, bomb Berlin, and then land in England.
        With what bomb load?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >However, the primary objective of much of the Allied bombing campaign was attrition of the Luftwaffe in anticipation for the invasion.
      Wrong, this was only true from spring 1944 onward and even then they only shifted priority after Eisenhower forced them too.

      This is the correct answer. Heavy bombers were more useful as bait to draw out, engage and destroy the Luftwaffe prior to invasion. Certainly more than any effect they might of had on German industry.

      We knew back then and have had demonstrated many times since that dropping a whole lot of ordinance on your enemy doesn't actually achieve a great deal.

      >We knew back then
      No, we really didn't, certainly not the Air Corps. They were convinced that the bombing campaign was so devastating that it constituted a second front.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Wrong, this was only true from spring 1944 onward and even then they only shifted priority after Eisenhower forced them too.
        You're thinking of the Transport Plan, and that was against ground transport, not the Luftwaffe.
        Before that the USAAF tried to damage Luftwaffe production by bombing ball bearing factories, but they took massive casualties and after the war it was found to be all for naught as the Germans had plenty of ball bearings to spare, and the damage inflicted during those raids were minimal.

        The most effective industrial bombing campaign which I know of was the RAF's campaign against the Ruhr valley, the Allied Transport Plan, and the anti-V-weapon bombing.

        This is the correct answer. Heavy bombers were more useful as bait to draw out, engage and destroy the Luftwaffe prior to invasion. Certainly more than any effect they might of had on German industry.

        We knew back then and have had demonstrated many times since that dropping a whole lot of ordinance on your enemy doesn't actually achieve a great deal.

        >Heavy bombers were more useful as bait
        Rank bullshit
        >dropping a whole lot of ordinance on your enemy doesn't actually achieve a great deal.
        At the very least it negated German attempts to increase aircraft and steel production for much of 1943, ensured the success of Overlord by destroying transport assets, eventually starved Germany of fuel and lubricants, created shortages in all kinds of smaller items including uniforms and infantry kit, reduced production of tank and motor vehicle parts, and disrupted vehicle maintenance (through the bombing of workshops). The latter reason being part of why the Tiger tank was frequently inoperable (they had better serviceable rates in Russia).

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So you attribute the Luftwaffe's decline in operational effectiveness towards the end of the war as a result of a shortage of fuel, lubricants and a decrease in steel and aircraft production? (Despite for example 109 production doubling from '43 to '44 and the various solutions to the fuel problems via synthetics).

          I think the lack of skilled pilots and serviceable aircraft (despite more being delivered) due to a protracted campaign of engaging bomber fleets that were heavily guarded by hordes of very capable aircraft waiting in ambush, might have had more to do with it.

          Which is all to say the bombing campaign was effective, just not in the way many think it was.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, I'm saying it's contributory.
            The other major factor is the heavy loss of Luftwaffe pilots while attempting to contest air superiority over Italy in 1943 and "Intruder" fighter sweeps over France, which killed a lot of experienced pilots. By 1944 (which did see the highest rate of losses, yes) Luftwaffe pilots were very under-trained, but the tide turned, IMO, in 1943.

            >Despite for example 109 production doubling from '43 to '44 and the various solutions to the fuel problems via synthetics
            The Bf109 increase was in part response to the problem, as the Bf109 was much cheaper to manufacture despite the Fw190 being superior in every way (at least 2x cheaper) and switching over would have led to a drop in production.

            >just not in the way many think it was.
            on the other hand, for the past few decades' research has been revealing greater and greater impacts of strategic bombing, not less. if anything, we are constantly correcting years and years of misconceptions about the "ineffectiveness" of WW2 strategic bombing campaign.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Well Sir, while you may be more knowledgeable on the subject than I, however I don't feel you've sufficiently justified your calling of my admittedly spicy take on bombers as being more useful as bait as "rank bullshit". It's an ugly topic discussing how leadership used men in the 2nd world war as cannon fodder, especially when we were meant to be the good guys, but it's a common enough occurrence throughout history, and 99% of those involved are now dead, despite remaining memories for some of us.

              Yes I cherry picked and production did swap to the simpler 109 over the Fw190 however simpler as it might be, the 109 was a well refined but complicated design that couldn't be built in someone's back shed. Modern industry would struggle greatly to reverse engineer or even build one new with specs now. If the bombing campaign was so successful at destroying German industry, the capacity to throw out 14,000 of these things didn't show it.

              On the "greater and greater impact" statement, I'd like to see some more meat and possibly references. As in, if I do hold a misconception (highly likely as we all do), I'd be grateful for some substantive correction.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >leadership used men in the 2nd world war as cannon fodder
                Disagreed
                The Western Allied leadership used men as best as they thought fit, it's just that (as always) plans don't always work out the way we envision them and they operated on highly imperfect information
                We have to recognise that when assessing decisions made then and now
                (can any of us truly know, 100% accurately, the actual state of the Russian Forces right now?)
                >especially when we were meant to be the good guys
                we are
                >On the "greater and greater impact" statement, I'd like to see some more meat and possibly references
                start with Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction

                >The Bf109 increase was in part response to the problem, as the Bf109 was much cheaper to manufacture despite the Fw190 being superior in every way (at least 2x cheaper) and switching over would have led to a drop in production.

                There were several reasons to keep producing 109G and not switch to 190. Including

                >retooling would have ceased production
                >109 was cheaper so less fighters would have been manufactured
                >109 was better at high altitudes(above 23 kft or so) and much faster climber, important for an interceptor
                >109G's DB605 engine used lower octane B4 fuel instead of C3 that the 190 needed. 109F had also used the C3 but they moved to B4 with cheaper DB605 engine when the realized they arent going to make bombers anymore and the war will be long and good alloys and fuel limited
                >Dr. W. Messerchmitt and his company were favored by the nazis

                t.diffanon

                You're right, but note that most of that is related to economisation and production volume.
                Climb rate is important but far from the only or even most important metric; the Fw190 was a better all-round interceptor and dogfighter both. The 109G was outclassed or at best par with later-model Spitfires, Mustangs, Lightnings, Mosquitos, maybe even Thunderbolts (I'm not sure on that one), basically every major Allied fighter in the ETO in 1943/44.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Another indication of Germans thinking the 109 was better at high altitudes was that in 44 they formed fighter regiments in the West a 4th Bf109 only Gruppe to give top cover 190s and to try to tie Allied escorts into dogfight letting 190s attack bombers. It didnt work very well but thats besides the point.

                Imo maybe the greatest problem with the 109 at discussed timeframe of 43-44 was that they kept making what was basically the same plane from mid 1942 to late 1944, the mass-production and total war optimized el cheapo 109G. They knew that water methanol injection works and gives significant performance boost yet did not install it on 109s until early summer 1944. I dont know why and have never heard or read of a good explanation. They had the readiness to do it for years and it brought 109 back on par with late war Allied fighters.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Bf109 only Gruppe to give top cover 190s and to try to tie Allied escorts into dogfight letting 190s attack bombers
                That's the exact opposite of what the RAF did in 1940; they allocated Spitfires against escorts and Hurricanes against bombers instead

                one possible reason why is that the Fw190's heavier armament (at least 6 machine guns or 4 MGs + 2 cannon) was considered more effective against bombers, and the Fw190 was more able to dogfight against escorts attacking it during or after a run against the bomber formations
                whereas a Bf109 being less capable could at least use diving and slashing tactics against escort fighters, with the height advantage

                It's a nice idea, wish it were true. We're not the good guys and never were. Nobody is. Wars such as this required nasty little c**ts as morally dubious as Curtis LeMay to preside over who himself stated had they lost he'd be before a war crimes tribunal.

                Tooze is a pop shill who's never written anything controversial in his life. Bought and paid for. To be a expert on a conflict so controversial that the wrong opinion lands you in jail is a tenuous thing. I'd not consider him part of the ranks.

                >Tooze is a pop shill
                so... what are your suggested references on the effectiveness of strategic bombing?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Start with primary sources. Heinz Knoke's diary turned book "I Flew for the Führer"is a fine start.

                Then move back to the 1930s. Where everyone now published and accessible wanted to suck Douhet's wiener. Nobody wrote books (at least none that are easily found) against the Trenchard school but there were many many smaller works worth looking at. Even H.G Well's "The War in the Air" is worthwhile.

                Then move all the way forward to Vietnam with Rolling Thunder & Linebacker. Close your eyes, throw a dart and you'll land on something that will tell you all you need to know.

                And if you want to reinforce your idea that we're the good guys. Grab something, anything from David Irving. A serious historian far too talked about out of context from his actual work.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                how is that going to help with
                >the effectiveness of strategic bombing?
                Tooze provides statistics to support his findings

                >David Irving
                lmao

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Indeed, they did that way because Fw190 had 4 times the firepower of Bf 109 and as bonus was more likely to survive defensive fire. Bf 109 was better up high and more suited to challenging escorts. They did have wing gun pod kits for the 109 but those made the plane a real dog.

                Escorts mostly didnt hang immediately around bomber formations but would sweep ahead of them, raid airfields, station themselves between airfields and the bombers etc. By mid 44 interceptors had problems even making it to the bombers so fast climbing 109s, especially high alt G-6AS and such, was handy alongside the Fw 190.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's a nice idea, wish it were true. We're not the good guys and never were. Nobody is. Wars such as this required nasty little c**ts as morally dubious as Curtis LeMay to preside over who himself stated had they lost he'd be before a war crimes tribunal.

                Tooze is a pop shill who's never written anything controversial in his life. Bought and paid for. To be a expert on a conflict so controversial that the wrong opinion lands you in jail is a tenuous thing. I'd not consider him part of the ranks.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The Bf109 increase was in part response to the problem, as the Bf109 was much cheaper to manufacture despite the Fw190 being superior in every way (at least 2x cheaper) and switching over would have led to a drop in production.

              There were several reasons to keep producing 109G and not switch to 190. Including

              >retooling would have ceased production
              >109 was cheaper so less fighters would have been manufactured
              >109 was better at high altitudes(above 23 kft or so) and much faster climber, important for an interceptor
              >109G's DB605 engine used lower octane B4 fuel instead of C3 that the 190 needed. 109F had also used the C3 but they moved to B4 with cheaper DB605 engine when the realized they arent going to make bombers anymore and the war will be long and good alloys and fuel limited
              >Dr. W. Messerchmitt and his company were favored by the nazis

              t.diffanon

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    a 4000lb bomb isn't much when you are slinging it from 15,000ft.

    There's a reason the Mosquito Light Night Strike Force (which usually just carried a single 4000lb "Cookie" and 2 wing drop tanks) was confined to trolling the Germans with the help of their radar equipped Mosquito Nightfighter brothers like disrupting speeches by Goring or using chaff to pretend to be a much larger bomber force headed for Berlin managing to draw off every night fighter in Germany while the Lancasters bombed the shit out of Peenemunde.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I recall reading an ME110 pilot’s memoirs which describe in vivid detail how mosquitoes were the absolute constant bane of his squadron’s existence
      >take off on a night intercept mission
      >tail gunner goes ACHTUNG MOSKITO BEHIND US
      >climb up to the bombers’ altitude
      >ACHTUNG MOSKITO BEHIND US
      >line up a shot on a bomber
      >ACHTUNG MOSKITO BEHIND US
      >descend to land
      >ACHTUNG MOSKITO BEHIND US
      >put gear down, touch down
      >ACHTUNG MOSKITO BEHIND US
      >take off flight suit, debrief, grab a bite to eat, go to sleep in the barracks
      >ACHTUNG MOSKITO BEHIND US

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    FAB-4000

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      4000 kilos is 8k lbs. A FIVE OUNCE BIRD CAN'T CARRY A ONE POUND COCONUT

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    B-17 was an old design by 1943. Thats the reason it carried a small bomb load and had a short range compared to a Lancaster ou Liberator.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    IIRC 8th AF gunners achieved an approximately 0.8:1 kill/loss ratio. While this is still hugely imbalanced due to a bomber carrying 9-10 dudes and a German fighter carrying 1-2, it's still something to keep in mind.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The B-17 could get turned to swiss cheese and still fly home

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why did anyone bother with the B17, B24, or Lancaster when the B-29 existed?
    Fricking moron.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >could carry 4,000lbs of bombs
    how far? the B-17 could take off in England, bomb Germany and then land in North Africa.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now!
    >It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy.
    >The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again.
    >What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops.
    >After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set – then at least I'll own something that has always worked
    t. Göring

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    B17s could carry 14,800 lbs of bombs
    They regularly carried 6,000-8,000
    The extra weight went to fuel so they could line up in formation and fly fast at 25-30,000 feet
    Lancasters couldn't do that which is why they basically did nothing but bomb civilians
    A Mosquito could not carry 4000 lbs of bombs to the places heavy bombers could carry 8000 lbs of bombs

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Lancasters couldn't do that
      Why not? They didn't have a way to mount aux fuel or something?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Stop making mossie threads it just brings schizos to boil

      How much fent were you on when you typed this out

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Bomber Command bombed more accurately and effectively by night than the 8th AF did during the fricking day.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Kek, no.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, they did.
          "Precision bombing" is a myth.

          "Accurate bombing remained elusive: under perfect conditions, only 50 percent of American bombs fell within a quarter mile of the target. Fighter attack, flak, smoke, and cloud cover lowered efficiency. American flyers estimated that as many as 90 percent of bombs might miss the target. For example, raids on the submarine pens at Saint-Nazaire and Lorient destroyed adjacent French towns but left the targets undamaged. The high costs to civilians, not only in Germany but also in the occupied countries, created widespread resentment of the Allies."

          Michael Adams, The Best War Ever

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mossies would eat shit from interceptors with practically zero aerial kills in exchange

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >what is Moskitopanik
      >what is Ritterkreuzhohe

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Interceptors arrive
        >Mossies drop bombs to be able to maneuver
        >Bomb strike denied, interceptors go home

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    As always the Americans prove to be complete fricking morons the moment someone points out one particular piece of their shit is inferior.

    Case in point, spazzing out over the Merlin when IRL US sucked Bong wiener just to get juicy Merlins in their P-51s.

    The Mosquito was the best bomber design in all of WW2 in performance against cost. Stupid moronic cope about supposed maintenance problems doesn't change that. Any proofs of widescale Mossie groundings due to engine problems? No.
    Proofs of B-17s being in a million pieces in Belgium? Plenty. Go and "easily maintain" that.

    In other news: Firefly is the best Sherman, Bren mogs BAR, Hispano makes the M2 .50 look like a typical overweight American moron.

    No one's pissing on your flag or killing a bald eagle if you admit that.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >In other news: Firefly is the best Sherman, Bren mogs BAR, Hispano makes the M2 .50 look like a typical overweight American
      stop stop he's already dead

      >Interceptors arrive
      >Mossies drop bombs to be able to maneuver
      >Bomb strike denied, interceptors go home

      >from 15 July to 15 August 1944, Mosquitos dropped 336 4,000lb bombs on Berlin
      >Bomb strike denied

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Damn the bomber command must have been moronic then to not exclusively use a light bomber for strategic bombing. Or could it be that Mosquitos simply aren't up to the task when you need strategic bombing?

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    B-17 could carry 300000lb and was the first to break the sound barrier
    None got shot down ever I saw it in the movies, they single handly saved Israel and killed the Nazis.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    this thread is moronic

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Photo-recon chads rise up

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Best Spit is pink Spit

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Finally something we can all agree on in this thread. Thank you.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nice.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >So what was the point of this big vulnerable skywhale then?
    it flew further.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    416th Night Fighter Squadron Mosquito NFXXX MV564 in Italy during early 1945.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Stupid Brit thinks four Merlins will cost as much as four Wright R-1820s. Even after Packard started building Merlins there were often not enough to go around for some programs that requested to use them. And have you ever even look at the production figures of the two aircraft?Many Mossies weren't even built as bombers and of those thst were not all of them were fitted to take the big 4,000 lb bomb. Raids on cities using it were not common until 1944. Also these were all done at night. So you're competion is the Lancaster not the B-17s doing daylight raids.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is an unfair comparison. The Mosquito came out much later in the war than the other bombers. Of course it's going to be far more superior

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The primary issue is range/fuel economy - the thickness of air at low altitude severely cuts into fuel economy, and that's before accounting for the higher engine output which also drinks more fuel and consumes the lifespan of engine components.

    Mosquito low-level raids on the coast are as much about stealth/surprise as they are speed - you form up low level so German radar can't pick you up and pre-scramble fighters. This means you hit the target and you're gone by the time defensive interceptors have scrambled off the ground. But a prepared enemy that can take the time to line up a GCI-guided intercept can get them - and that's the problem for reaching targets deep in Germany.

    In order to get the fuel economy necessary, that means climbing and approaching the target at higher altitude and at a more fuel-economical cruise speed - this gives German radar more warning and defensive interceptors more time to scramble and set up an intercept. You also don't want to dive down for a low level attack over a target deep in Germany since it will be crawling with AA guns and flak - which then means you have to level bomb it, which is less accurate... and to compensate for that accuracy, you need to bomb as a group... and to bomb as a group, you need a formation... and to maintain formation, you have to slow down - and if you're slowing down anyway, why not just arm the bombers?

    This essentially mirrors the high-level doctrinal debate happening in Bomber Command about the merits of taking armament off bombers and using the weight savings for speed instead - it was simply found to be not very practical. Another major factor was the speed of aircraft development - a 20 kp/h speed advantage against the latest class of fighters could be significant, but could also be negated with newer fighters or even just upgrades to existing types (ex. the jump from 109E to 109F, or the FW-190).

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's also instructive to look at the Eastern Front - both the Soviets and Germans developed their tactical bomber arms under very similar logic - fast bombers ("schnellbombers" in the German case) with relatively light armaments that relied on speed and relatively low-level approaches to strike at tactical targets with precision and safety - ex. the Pe-2, the He-111, Ju-88.

      A high-speed mission profile would keep the bomber force safe, but would also preclude you from striking far-off targets and limit you mostly to tactical and operational interdiction. In the case of the Pe-2 - early in the war it had a strong speed advantage over the earlier Bf109E series, but the speed advantage that kept it safe was essentially wiped out by the introduction of the improved Bf109F series and the FW190, which were both faster.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God this thread is autistic
    I could beat up everyone here then I would jump in my mosquito glued to a b-17 to fly to your mom's house and frick her

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Blame the American moron that is unwilling to admit a mid war British bomber with exceptional design just plain outperforms an American early war standard design based on the inferior "bomber will fight through fighters" paradigm.

      All the engine cope is just one or multiple Ameritards unwilling to admit "bugger, the blimeys won that one mate, glad they were our allies".

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >So what was the point of this big vulnerable skywhale then?
    Boeing could make a lot of them fast. It didn't matter that it was kind of shit, it was available at all and available in large numbers.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >wunderwaffen posting but for the british
    Mossies were good tactical fighter-bombers, with niche strategic roles. 4 engined heavies were strategic bombers, with niche tactical roles. They both served their own purposes in a wider combined arms effort
    pic unrel

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Between 1943 and the end of the war, Mosquitos were used as transport aircraft on a regular route over the North Sea between Leuchars in Scotland and Stockholm, in neutral Sweden. To ensure that the flights did not violate Sweden's neutrality, the aircraft carried civilian markings and were operated by crews who were nominally "civilian employees" of British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC). They carried small, high value cargoes such as precision ball bearings and machine-tool steel, as well as Diplomatic Bags. Important passengers were also carried in an improvised "cabin" in the bomb bay. One such notable passenger was the physicist Niels Bohr, who was evacuated from Stockholm in 1943 in order to join the British Mission on the Manhattan Project. The flight almost ended in tragedy since Bohr did not don his oxygen equipment as instructed, and passed out. He would have died had not the pilot, surmising from Bohr's lack of response to intercom communication that he had lost consciousness, descended to a lower altitude for the remainder of the flight. Bohr's comment was that he had slept like a baby for the entire flight.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The RAF's biggest secret during WWII

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Supposedly the bomb bay was pretty comfy since you were lying in a hammock with blanket, you even got an inflight thermos of tea and a sandwich.

      Also the transformation from RAF pilot to BOAC pilot consisted of donning a 3 piece suit instead of a military uniform. The same trick was used by 153cm tall naval twink and legendary test pilot Eric Brown when he flew to neutral Ireland in May, 1945 to take possession of a Ju-88 G-6 nightfighter with the latest FuGG :D:D:D radar. The Ju-88 was part of a squadron in Norway where the squadron leader gathered all the aircrew and maintainers in a room and told them "Everything is fricked. Each pilot can take an aircraft to their destination of choice with a full fuel tank and whoever they want. I'm off to Sweden lads"

      The pilot of the Ju-88 wanted to defect to Britain since his family lived in south africa and he just wanted to go home. The flak was too heavy to land in Britain so they landed in Gormanston AFB in the republic of Ireland. De Valera gave the Ju-88 to Britain in exchange for military aid leading to to the german speaking Brown to fly to ireland, debrief the german aircrew then spending the night in the pub with Irish air corp officers and the Germans before flying the Ju-88 back the next day.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Bohr's comment was that he had slept like a baby for the entire flight.
      Based moron nearly slept the sleep of dead men.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The USAAF 25th Bombardment Group (Reconnaissance) was constituted in the days after D-Day and activated at RAF Watton in August 1944 to carry out photographic and mapping missions over mainland Europe, as the Allied armies pushed east. In addition to photo-reconnaissance missions both for weather forecasting and for target identifications, they employed their PR Mk XVI Mosquitos as Chaff (countermeasure) dispensers and as scouts for the heavy bomber force. They also undertook "[Joan-Eleanor Project]" OSS missions using an air-to-ground radio system known as Joan-Eleanor system. This required modifications to the rear fuselage to accommodate an intelligence service linguist to talk to agents on the ground through a VHF radio.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    WW2 bombers will never stop giving me boners.

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You could drop people out of these not just bombs

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's pretty obvious from hindsight that smaller, faster, more accurate bombers with smaller crews are a lot more efficient and effective than giant bombers. Just look at the bomber-fighter convergence that's been happening for the past 60 years.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *