It’s not as impressive as you might think - the F-117 was an interesting proof of concept, but as a fighter plane it blew copious chunks. It was about as agile as a lead brick, unstable, slow, carried no radar whatsoever, a *terrible *payload of only two (2) bombs and its operational range was quite poor (no external pods, small wings, weapons using up a lot of internal space). Once spotted it was more or less defenseless - although happily it rarely ever was.
The only thing it ever had going for it was its stealth (compounded by its rarity and secrecy), and even that didn’t last for ever against a 60s era radar dish.
There’s a reason they only ever built 60 of the shits before quickly moving on ;).
there’s a story of some guy in a mossie evading a 262. It lasted about 8 minutes and at the end of it, with the 262 presumably out of ammo, he sidles up to the mossie and gives him a wave before peeling off. here we go German Jet Encounters
someone said though that at least the superfortress could fly above AA range and so could be, and was, used with impunity from the ground.
which brings me back to “is there anything the mossie COULDNT do that anything else could” as wiki tells me that the mossie could also fly above the roughly 25,000 ft ceiling of the German guns. Add the speed factor in and your chances of being hit by flak have got to be next to nothing compared to 200mph at 20.000ft. i.e., if you really do think area bombing works, then do it in mossies and least we can have most of them back. Were mossies ever used for high altitude bombing ?. I suppose greater height and speed makes it harder to hit the target. I guess you’d need to perform some high altitude dive in order to at least have an accurate idea of where the target was. I suppose you just wouldnt bother doing it. Just come in low, flat out, and at least be certain that if you made it to the target you hit it, as oppose to turning up day after day throwing bombs from 5 miles up and missing.
It is the discovery that working for bomber command was simply the most dangerous job you could have done in the entire war, indeed more dangerous than being a WWI infantryman, that I find so shocking. From a British standpoint this seems to be at least in part due to our/churchill’s need to demonstrate to both Stalin, and the U.S., that we were making a decent effort. There seems to be a parallel with the Somme and having to basically suffer losses comparable to the French in order to stop them capitulating.
In honour of those that fought, and especially fought and died, that policy should never be left unquestioned. And the mosquitoes role in at least limiting these appalling losses not forgotten.
Minor nitpick: perhaps the most dangerous thing an Allied serviceman could have done during the war. Ultimately, service in the German U-Boat arm was worse; about 3/4 of them died (not “were killed, wounded, or missing,” died.)
On-topic, the “Supersonic” episode of the TV program Dogfights featured a Mosquito raid on a German airbase that really leveraged some of the Mosquito’s best qualities. Two Mosquitoes came in low and made two high-speed strafing passes over the rows of parked planes, dumping out rounds from their heavy gun armament (4 machine guns and 4 20mm cannons), and then pulled away and fled at high speed.
I meant on the allied side of course, and I stand to be corrected. I guess there’s stuff the Russians did equally suicidal as the u-boats.
The main point obviously, and it’s direct relevance to a thread on the Mosquito, is that heavy bombers suffered appalling and sustained losses for a dubious return, given the options.
The Mosquito’s payload in bomber trim was limited to four 500 lb. bombs. The F-117A carried two GBU-27s (2,000 lbs. each). Also, the radar cross sections aren’t really comparable. The Mosquito was virtually invisible to the primitive radar systems operated by the Germans in WWII. It would show up as bright as day on modern systems, which are powerful enough to penetrate the wooden fuselage and return a signal from all the metal stuff inside (engines, fuel tanks, payload, controls and so on).
They licensed production out to Canada and Australia, but checking wiki that seems to have been to DeHavilland subsidiaries. The Mosquito was, at least in part, a way to produce a plane that used resources that weren’t already fully tapped by the war effort. The US wasn’t constrained by resources in the way the UK was.
Probably because of limited raw materials and manufacturing capability. The Americans had plenty of both. Good as the Mossie was, de Havilland could knock out only so many of them at a time.
apparently the RAF ordered 143. they then bothered flying them and cancelled the order. Lockheed decided to hold them to the contract. After Pearl Harbor that ordered was requisitioned by USAAF.
Thats as much a smoking gun as I have. The mossie basically retired the Lightning from reconnaissance duties. USAAF even converted the order they got from Canada which were delivered as bombers into reconnaissance planes.
We’ve got probably the most famous aircraft manufacturer there is threatening to sue the RAF for not buying their plane off them. US pilots are given standing orders never to fly the P38 alongside a mossie for fear of feeling inferior, and yet no mosquitoes are ever built in the states and with the exception of some night fighters in italy, no mosquitoes are ever used in combat roles by USAAF, and no bombers at all.
It was a lot harder to build than I had realised. They took much longer than an entire Lancaster for instance. It needed a concerted effort to get enough places to scale up production.
There’s something wrong with the use of the phrase. A plane delivering a load with greater proximity; whether through dive bombing, treetop-level attack, shallow dive, or wave-skimming torpedo run; has to earn greater accuracy than high-level bombing, unless you have bad pilots or equipment, or both.
I understood pinpoint bombing to be a remote way of bombing (high-level) but with greater accuracy expected than, say, carpet bombing. Better bomb sights, better bombs, or just greater practice and mission-specific preparations will allow this. We have examples of pinpoint accuracy at high-level by both sides in WW2: the British bombing of the V-3 gun sights, Japanese Betty bombers over Clark Field, German attacks on French airfields in 1940, the American Norden.
I’m not mocking them, I’m just saying you wouldn’t catch me dead in a submarine, much less a WW2 one.
U-boots were marvels of technology, fighting a tight strategic and tactical game (even though Dönitz sunk quite a few “himself”, with his tendency to gab a lot and look after his crews a little too closely, resulting in Huff Duff triangulations and faster code breaks each month)… that were nevertheless fighting in pre-sunk boats that left them very little chance of survival if hit. And statistics say you’re bound to get hit the longer you fight.
Which brings us back to my first point : these blokes were bonkers
Nor I.
I have been in the USS Razorback, a WWII sub sold to Turkey and now a museum piece in North Little Rock, AR. I am a short guy and had no problem navigating it, but the cooks were the only guys who could bathe daily, and during the cold war they had a nuke torpedo in the stern torpedo room. If the balloon went up, they were to fire it at whatever fleet they were shadowing and run like hell. Hence it’s location in the stern torpedo room.
It is like sky diving to me; who would jump out of a perfectly good airplane, and who would go underwater in a perfectly good boat?
