Heavies vs Mediums

Something just struck me as I watched again a DVD I bought last year about the De Havilland Mosquito, probably my favourite aircraft of WW2 (although the Spitfire gives it a close run).
The commentary suggests that had RAF command pursued a policy of using larger numbers of Mossiest the number of Bomber Command personnel losses could have been greatly reduced. Contemporary estimates were that Mossies could have delivered about 4 and a half times the bomb load of the equivalent ‘heavy bomber’ force. I am guessing that the comparison is based on weight of bombs dropped to crew losses.

This seems to make some sense.

Mosquito: 2 engines, 2 crew, with later models capable of carrying 4000lb bombs.
(2000lb/engine, 2000lb/crew).

‘Heavies’ (e.g. Lancs): 4 engines, 7 crew and 14000lb bomb load (3500lb/engine, 2000lb/crew).
For comparison, B17: 4 engines, 9 or 10 crew and 6000lb bomb load (1500lb/engine, 667 or 600lb/crew). B24: 4 engines, 10 crew and 8000lb bomb load (2000lb/engine, 800lb/crew)

Obviously the maths tends to suggest the heavies (Lancs at least) were a more economical delivery method but were crew losses higher as a result?

Given its speed and manoeuvrability I suspect the Mosquito crews had a higher survival rate.

Does anyone have any stats or ideas to support this?

 

SomObviously the maths tends to suggest the heavies (Lancs at least) were a more economical delivery method but were crew losses higher as a result?

Given its speed and manoeuvrability I suspect the Mosquito crews had a higher survival rate.

Does anyone have any stats or ideas to support this?

I tend to agree, Mossies would be a better option.
But then, most of the resources used to support Bomber Command would be better spent elsewhere

 

Hi Freebird,
I tend to support the 'conventional' theory that the Bomber Command campaign was an essential part of the Total War effort. Having said that I do feel that some of the most devastating Allied air raids (e.g. Dresden) did little to further the war effort, although from memory I think Dresden was a secondary target for that raid, the primary target being abandoned due to weather.
The resulting civilian casualties are uncomfortable to read with the benefit of history but, at the time, the Axis rescources diverted to defend against air bombardment meant less man power/materiel to support other areas of operations and that was one of the advantages of the air effort.
To get back to the original question - were Mossies a better option than 'heavies'?

 

Mike,

More on that subject here:
http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/war-air/31559-strategic-bombing.html

 

I think that one of the statistics that may be worth while examining is tonnage per pilot. With no intended disrespect to the rest of the crew - I flew until very recently with the one of (if not the) largest number of qualified aircrew in the RAF - it takes more to train a pilot than it does the rest.

Furthermore, the intended target needs also to be taken into account.

Roxy

 

Canuck, thanks for that link, very interesting posts.
I guess this one question that stimulates many differing opinions!

 

Canuck, thanks for that link, very interesting posts.
I guess this one question that stimulates many differing opinions!

I believe this subject comes up because it simply makes so much sense from any number of perspectives. And when Erhard Milch expresses his fear of massed attacks from the Mossie it makes you think.

 

You must look at the training and availability of pilots and navigators required to man Mosquitos and deliver the tonnage of bombs that a Lancaster squadron could deliver.Without doubt, if there was a better way of delivering economic blows to German industry,that way would have been taken,even with hindsight.

Let us start with the maximum Lancaster squadrons that Bomber Command could muster.Off the top of my head, it was 58 squadrons at its peak.

 

I might be digging myself a hole here so please bear with me
I am struggling with the logistics of bomb load/crew numbers/pilot training/airfield availability etc. I didn't realise I was opening such a can of worms!
On a basic level it would seem to me:
Mossie - 1 pilot, 1 navigator and multi tasking. 2 Merlins, potentially 4000lb bomb load.

Lanc (best alternative I think) - 1 Pilot, 1 Navigator, 1 Flight Engineer, 1 Wireless OP, 3 Air Gunners and some multi tasking, potentially 20,000lb bomb load.

Given the time and materiel required for production, crew training and maintenance of a 4 engined 7 crewed all metal 'heavy' compared to a largely timber 2 engined 2 crewed 'medium' (with arguably a better survival rate of aircraft and crew) can anyone come up with some stats that support the 'heavy' argument?

I am playing devil's advocate here - I can't support either view with stats.

 

A starting point would the relative production costs. £58,974 for a Lancaster vs £18,000 for a Mossie.

 

I might be digging myself a hole here so please bear with me
I am struggling with the logistics of bomb load/crew numbers/pilot training/airfield availability etc. I didn't realise I was opening such a can of worms!
On a basic level it would seem to me:
Mossie - 1 pilot, 1 navigator and multi tasking. 2 Merlins, potentially 4000lb bomb load.

Lanc (best alternative I think) - 1 Pilot, 1 Navigator, 1 Flight Engineer, 1 Wireless OP, 3 Air Gunners and some multi tasking, potentially 20,000lb bomb load.

Given the time and materiel required for production, crew training and maintenance of a 4 engined 7 crewed all metal 'heavy' compared to a largely timber 2 engined 2 crewed 'medium' (with arguably a better survival rate of aircraft and crew) can anyone come up with some stats that support the 'heavy' argument?

I am playing devil's advocate here - I can't support either view with stats.

This morning,over my first cup of tea,on the coffe table,I calculated roughly the difference it would have made to the delivering of tonnage and the affect on aircrew training and numbers.I have based it one one type,the Lancaster which at its peak strength,Bomber Command had 58 squadrons.It interesting but as I see it,it would have involved an increase in pilot and navigator numbers by a factor of 3.5.A matter of calculating the bombing load ratio between the two types of aircraft.There would be also new issues to resolve outside the Pilot and Navigator numbers.

Assume a Lancaster bomb load as being 14.000 lbs.Anything above that would be special jobs.

Lancaster crew.say 7, ignoring No 101 Squadron which operated "Cigar" and required one further crew as a specialist operator for "Cigar"

Pilot

Flight Engineer

Navigator

Bomb Aimer

Wireless Operator

Mid Upper Gunner

Rear Gunner.

 

This morning,over my first cup of tea,on the coffe table,I calculated roughly the difference it would have made to the delivering of tonnage and the affect on aircrew training and numbers.I have based it one one type,the Lancaster which at its peak strength,Bomber Command had 58 squadrons.It interesting but as I see it,it would have involved an increase in pilot and navigator numbers by a factor of 3.5.A matter of calculating the bombing load ratio between the two types of aircraft.There would be also new issues to resolve outside the Pilot and Navigator numbers.

Assume a Lancaster bomb load as being 14.000 lbs.Anything above that would be special jobs.

Lancaster crew.say 7, ignoring No 101 Squadron which operated "Cigar" and required one further crew as a specialist operator for "Cigar"

Pilot

Flight Engineer

Navigator

Bomb Aimer

Wireless Operator

Mid Upper Gunner

Rear Gunner.

Harry,

To extend your calculations:
It would initially cost 7% more to produce the required number of Mosquitoes to deliver the same bomb tonnage as 58 squadrons of Lancasters (2,436 vs 696). That based on a 14,000 to 4,000 ton capacity differential. At that point, however, the economies begin to take effect. At 10-15% of the Lancaster loss rate and with presumably higher bombing accuracy, it would be more economical to to continue a Mosquito campaign. In fact, the lower losses, over time, could have resulted in a much larger Mosquito fleet at less expense.
By the end of 1942, The Commonwealth Air Training Plan already had a significant surplus of trained air crew. That would have provided pilots and navigators and possibly freed up manpower for other duties from redundant gunners, wireless operators, etc.
With lower loss rates it would be easier to maintain sufficient crew strength and one would expect that with crews surviving longer an increase in bombing effectiveness would result from that additional experience.
The huge speed advantage of the Mossie also creates the potential for some aircraft to perform two sorties per night on shorter range targets.

The challenges for the Luftwaffe to defend against 2,000-3,000 Mossies on any given night are also interesting to contemplate.

 

Canuck, thanks for that Sir, exactly the sort of comparison I was hoping for.
I know we don't do 'what ifs' on WW2Talk but it is an intriguing subject to me.
It has always interested me why Germany never seemed to go for 'heavies'. To my mind the Ju88 and He111 were 'mediums' and, apart from the FW Condor (which I believe was a converted airliner and not generally used as a bomber apart from the odd maritime attack), I am not aware of any German 4 engined 'heavies'.
Were the Germans ahead of us in logistics of bomber operations? Or was the concept of the 'medium' bomber just more conducive to the 'Blitzkreig' mentality and concept?

 

Could the Allies acutely produce more of each type of plane than they where doing? I guess it is like when people say the British should have made more 6 pounder anti tank guns instead of more of the old 2 pounders. Should they make a better tank than the early war ones. It looks good in theory but can you switch production over very easily? I think the limiting factor with the production of the Mosquito may have been that some of the treated wood needed in the production came from the U.S. (I don't know if this was hard to produce)

Also I don't believe you can't compare the effectiveness of the types because 400 Mosquitoes never Terra-bombed a city.

 

Canuck, thanks for that Sir, exactly the sort of comparison I was hoping for.
I know we don't do 'what ifs' on WW2Talk but it is an intriguing subject to me.
It has always interested me why Germany never seemed to go for 'heavies'. To my mind the Ju88 and He111 were 'mediums' and, apart from the FW Condor (which I believe was a converted airliner and not generally used as a bomber apart from the odd maritime attack), I am not aware of any German 4 engined 'heavies'.
Were the Germans ahead of us in logistics of bomber operations? Or was the concept of the 'medium' bomber just more conducive to the 'Blitzkreig' mentality and concept?

Mike,

If you look at the bombers that Germany employed at the beginning of the war (JU 88, Do 17, JU 87, HE 111) it is clear that they were predominantly a tactical solution in support of ground force operations or strategy.
I don't believe that a long range, strategic bomber was even considered until later and even then did not become a major priority.

 

Could the Allies acutely produce more of each type of plane than they where doing? I guess it is like when people say the British should have made more 6 pounder anti tank guns instead of more of the old 2 pounders. Should they make a better tank than the early war ones. It looks good in theory but can you switch production over very easily? I think the limiting factor with the production of the Mosquito may have been that some of the treated wood needed in the production came from the U.S. (I don't know if this was hard to produce)

Also I don't believe you can't compare the effectiveness of the types because 400 Mosquitoes never Terra-bombed a city.

Terror bombing (i.e Hamburg) with incendiaries was a method which evolved from the realization that night time bombing accuracy was exceptionally difficult (see Butt Report). Burning German cities to the ground would have been less necessary if the specific targets within an urban area could have been hit with any assurance. Even with technological advances (H2S, Oboe, GEE, Pathfinders) it was difficult to hit targets effectively, especially in unfavourable weather. It was really a case of blanketing an area in the hopes of taking out the intended military targets. The total tonnage of bombs expended would have been much less if more accurate bombing was possible from the 'bomber stream' method.

Mosquitoes were also manufactured in Canada and Australia. I'm not sure about down under but we had no shortage of wood here. The increase in production would also assume that some plants producing the bigger four engine bombers would switch over to Mossie production.

 

Terror bombing (i.e Hamburg) with incendiaries was a method which evolved from the realization that night time bombing accuracy was exceptionally difficult (see Butt Report). Burning German cities to the ground would have been less necessary if the specific targets within an urban area could have been hit with any assurance. Even with technological advances (H2S, Oboe, GEE, Pathfinders) it was difficult to hit targets effectively, especially in unfavourable weather. It was really a case of blanketing an area in the hopes of taking out the intended military targets. The total tonnage of bombs expended would have been much less if more accurate bombing was possible from the 'bomber stream' method.

Mosquitoes were also manufactured in Canada and Australia. I'm not sure about down under but we had no shortage of wood here. The increase in production would also assume that some plants producing the bigger four engine bombers would switch over to Mossie production.

The Mosquitos manage some great feats of accuracy: the Goering radio raid; the Norwegian raid; the Gestapo prison raid etc. However could you train all crews to that standed, and strategically was the fire bombing and terror bombing more or less effective? (Another debate). Spree himself I believe said. “That six more raids like Hamburg, on other German cities, would have ended the war.” Take, say the production of SMGs as an example. In one year Britain produced more than Germany did in three. Could factories be turned over to make Mosquitos, it was a boon that skilled wood-workers could make them but could you re train whole assembly lines and retool entire factories?

 

Could the Allies acutely produce more of each type of plane than they where doing? I guess it is like when people say the British should have made more 6 pounder anti tank guns instead of more of the old 2 pounders.


The reason the 6pdr didn't come into service early "enough" was that to do so meant taking production away from 2pdrs....and a 6pdr would require the same production effort/time as at least TWO 2pdrs. So in the changeover period that british would be EITHER producing FEWER A/T guns.....or NO A/T guns at all! Both were of course an unacceptable option, so 6pdr production didn't begin until the EXTRA manufacturing capacity was created

Mike,

If you look at the bombers that Germany employed at the beginning of the war (JU 88, Do 17, JU 87, HE 111) it is clear that they were predominantly a tactical solution in support of ground force operations or strategy.
I don't believe that a long range, strategic bomber was even considered until later and even then did not become a major priority.


Except the Luftwaffe never saw this as a limitation! As I noted before - John Ray notes that the Luftwaffe began a strategic bombing camapign three weeks after the Armistice and several weeks before Goering ordered ANY planning for the BoB....because noone told then not to!! They were an air force, to pursue the defeat of an enemy by the means at their disposal...

As late as 1942, still without a practical "heavy" at their disposal (if you accept the He177 was ever really useable LOL) Ray notes that the Luftwaffe was STILL lecturing officers on the conduct of a strategic campaign against the UK with what they had at their disposal.

It's also worth comparing the bombloads of some of those LW "tactical" bombers with what the first so-called "Heavies" the RAF used in 1939-40 could carry In SOME cases there isn't very much difference at all...

The increase in production would also assume that some plants producing the bigger four engine bombers would switch over to Mossie production.


I'm not sure to what extent this would really improve production; the majority of woodforming etc for the Mossie was farmed out to a range of non-aviation specialists - furniture makers, boatbuilders etc., the sort of people used to shaping/forming in wood. Only the fitting of components, engines, avionics and final assembly etc. was an "aviation industry" role.

If anything - the extra prodution capacity would have to come from diverting MORE companies away from other tasks in wood in the UK - more boatbuilders working on Mossies and less on coastal shipping for the RN, for instance...

Lanc (best alternative I think) - 1 Pilot, 1 Navigator, 1 Flight Engineer, 1 Wireless OP, 3 Air Gunners and some multi tasking, potentially 20,000lb bomb load.

Mike, remember the Lanc's loadcarrying ability only grew by degrees during the war; it was originally ONLY spec'd for 8,000lbs, grew to 14,000 by making internal alterations and bulging the bombdoors, and the final 22,000lb capacity was achieved by stripping-out the design in the B.MkI (Special)....

....and of course none of even these would have been achieveable without successively-more powerful Merlin installations as the war progressed

So the question is really - could the Air ministry have had enough Mossies built quickly enough to match the Lancaster's progressive increases in potential?

A starting point would the relative production costs. £58,974 for a Lancaster vs £18,000 for a Mossie

Canuck - what year do those figures apply to?

 

Obviously a question which will never be answered but when reputable leaders like Bennett were advocating the Mossie, it makes it worth discussing.
I would really like to understand the politics behind the strategic bomber decisions. Was it influence by some powerful manufacturers, lack of vision by the air ministry, inflexible thinking, bureaucracy, personalities, egos, etc.

 

. Was it influence by some powerful manufacturers, lack of vision by the air ministry, inflexible thinking, bureaucracy, personalities, egos, etc.


That's quite interesting I guess someone would need to look into Lord Beaverbrook's and a few others relations (I would not know who) with the big manufacturers. That said I am not sure but did De Havilland have a reputation for being a maverick??