Great Footage - Dam Busters Bouncing Bomb
Discussion
TEKNOPUG said:
Eric Mc said:
The Upkeep Bomb weighed 9,250 lbs/4 tons.
The Mosquito could carry up to 4,000 lbs of bombs.
4,000lbs of explosive underwater would make one hell of a mess of any ship. Were they successfully used in combat?The Mosquito could carry up to 4,000 lbs of bombs.
rhinochopig said:
knight said:
I still find it mighty impressive that the Mosquito could carry a similar weight of bombs as the B17!
Me too. I still think that we'd have had a far more effective bombing campaign in terms of targets hit, crews/airframes lost if we'd have used Mossies instead of Lancs.The spec for what became the Lancaster was issued in 1936. The Air Ministry never issued a spec for the Mossie, it was a private venture by De Havilland.
Could they have delivered the same tonnage of bombs to Germany with a fleet of Mosquitos compared to the fleets of Lancatsers, Halifaxes and Stirlings? Or were they better off doing what they did, isung the special attributes of the Mosquito for more precise bombing?
The B-17 was also an old design by the mid 1940s (having first flown in 1935) and althought its bomb load was small, its performance was pretty good - and it could fly very high. It was designed to a different philosophy to either the British heavies or the Mosquito and a philosphy which we can now see was probably flawed - but you can't just s
t down massive production lines in the middle of a war. You go with what you've got.Eric Mc said:
The Upkeep Bomb weighed 9,250 lbs/4 tons.
The Mosquito could carry up to 4,000 lbs of bombs.
according to -The Mosquito could carry up to 4,000 lbs of bombs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_bomb
the highball was 950 lbs
i would like to hear the clang when that practice bomb hit the ship !
Eric Mc said:
rhinochopig said:
knight said:
I still find it mighty impressive that the Mosquito could carry a similar weight of bombs as the B17!
Me too. I still think that we'd have had a far more effective bombing campaign in terms of targets hit, crews/airframes lost if we'd have used Mossies instead of Lancs.The spec for what became the Lancaster was issued in 1936. The Air Ministry never issued a spec for the Mossie, it was a private venture by De Havilland.
Could they have delivered the same tonnage of bombs to Germany with a fleet of Mosquitos compared to the fleets of Lancatsers, Halifaxes and Stirlings? Or were they better off doing what they did, isung the special attributes of the Mosquito for more precise bombing?
The B-17 was also an old design by the mid 1940s (having first flown in 1935) and althought its bomb load was small, its performance was pretty good - and it could fly very high. It was designed to a different philosophy to either the British heavies or the Mosquito and a philosphy which we can now see was probably flawed - but you can't just s
t down massive production lines in the middle of a war. You go with what you've got.To some extent that is true but you can’t underestimate the disruption to production numbers a new model would have. Nowhere is this greater emphasized than in tank production. Whilst the Germans were constantly upgrading their tanks and introducing all new designs, the allies stuck with the Sherman and built it in staggering numbers. It was a medium tank and outclassed by all German heavies, so much so that it was reckoned that it took 5 Shermans to destroy 1 German tank (in losses). Fortunately we outnumbered them by more than 10-1. Scant comfort for the crews but on a strategic level, you have to look at what is at your disposal and how to make best use of it.
People fight wars, not machines. People make decsions based on their knowledge, opinions and prejudices. And they also fight wars with equipment that was designed before the war started.
As far as aviation was concerned, most of the "war winning" aircraft were designed before hostilities commenced. Only a handfull of aircraft designed post 1939 had a major impact on the war, the B-29 and the P-51 being the most important, in my opinion.
The Mosquito was a great aeroplane but it had its limitations too.
I can sympathise with the Air Ministry, after being badgered by the manufacturers to start ordering modern metal monoplanes, when they do, another manufacturer arrives stating that wood is best.
Also, De Havilland did not have any history of building modern military aircraft. The last De Havilland designes used by the British military were from WW1. The Air Ministry were also dubious about the structural integrity of a wooden monoque held together by glue - with some justification,
As far as aviation was concerned, most of the "war winning" aircraft were designed before hostilities commenced. Only a handfull of aircraft designed post 1939 had a major impact on the war, the B-29 and the P-51 being the most important, in my opinion.
The Mosquito was a great aeroplane but it had its limitations too.
I can sympathise with the Air Ministry, after being badgered by the manufacturers to start ordering modern metal monoplanes, when they do, another manufacturer arrives stating that wood is best.
Also, De Havilland did not have any history of building modern military aircraft. The last De Havilland designes used by the British military were from WW1. The Air Ministry were also dubious about the structural integrity of a wooden monoque held together by glue - with some justification,
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff