And in any case, it wouldnt have been obvious at the time, since it is still an argument without an absolute resolution now.If you agree to our use of cookies, please continue to use our site.
Or Learn more Continue NavWeaps Forums Login Join HOME NavWeaps Forums Militaries of the World and their Ships, Histories and Weapons FORUMS DISCUSSIONS MESSAGES NOTIFICATIONS NavWeaps Forums The Air Forces Mossie v. Lancaster Forum rules Share Share with: Link: Copy link Switch to Print View -. The alternative was to replace the big and slow and expensive heavy bombers with the Mosquito as Bomber commands main bomber. The points in favor of this alternative were also clearly presented by group commander Bennett, as a comparison between the Mosquito and the Lancaster, which was the best British heavy bomber: Mosquito carries to Berlin half the bomb load carried by a Lancaster, but. Mosquito loss rate is just 110 of Lancasters loss rate Mosquito costs a third of the cost of a Lancaster Mosquito has a crew of two, compared to a Lancasters crew of seven Mosquito was a proven precision day bomber and the Lancaster was not. Bennett added that any way you do the math with those data, Its quite clear that the value of the Mosquito to the war effort is significantly greater than that of any other aircraft in the history of aviation. In the German side, Erhard Milch, the deputy head of the Luftwaffe, said about the Mosquito I fear that one day the British will start attacking with masses of this aircraft. But in one of the greatest allied mistakes in World War 2, bomber command persisted with its heavy bombers, and less than 14 of the Mosquitoes produced were of bomber types. TSA (Also known as Fred Walls) Havent I seen You somewhere before Maybe. A G Williams 1,658 238 1 A G Williams 1,658 238 1 Sep 20, 2018 2 2018-09-20T03:28 I agree with the points made in favour of the Mossie. The problem was mainly that it didnt fit in with the RAFs (and others, to be fair) conception of bombing. This was always perceived pre-war as being carried out by massive aircraft with heavy defensive armament, as ultimately represented in the European war by the B17 and B24. The RAFs early-war experience of daylight bombing by unescorted aircraft was costly and forced them to turn to night bombing, which was so inaccurate (until late in the war) that they adopted a policy of mass-bombing in the general area of the target - the quantity and size of bombs mattered. It took a long while for the capabilities of the Mosquito to be fully appreciated, but later in the war (with greatly superior night navigation and bomb-aiming methods) the RAF did come to realise that it was close to optimal for night bombing. But by then, the production lines for the heavies were fully established and rolling, so why stop them Before June 1944 the main US and UK concern was in keeping the USSR in the war and apart from supplying equipment, the only way to help was by maintaining a massive bombing campaign. There was also the practical point that it would not have been simple to switch production over to the Mossie; it was build of plywood requiring entirely different production technologies and materials from the conventional metal-built planes. All of this was done by hand, save only the steam press to shape the panels. The comparison assumes that the same resources that were used for creating mosies could be immediately used for Lancasters. Im not a student of UK production but I suspect that was not the case. If you want to talk about resource allocation, an argument could be made to ditch bombers and go for landing ships and tanks. But again, that assumes that all resources are equally accessible for all platforms any four engined bomber of x value could be made into x number of tanks of the same monetary value - which is clearly false. It might be the case that more emphasis in hindsight could have been made to specific platforms that required less resources; it is highly doubtful enough emphasis would have been made to significantly alter the course of the war.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |