I used two sources - The Bomber Command War Diaries, page 376.
Bomber Command Handbook, page 65.
London to Berlin is approximately 500 NM. Assume that the East Anglian airfields were used and they were approximately the same distance. Allow for a not-quite great circle route being used and that gives a total distance of 1100 NM.
A Mosquito B.IV had a flat-out speed of 330 kt (source http://www.vectorsite.net/avmoss_1.html#m6 ). That implies 3h 20 min for the round trip at full speed (implausible) and roughly 4 hours if cruising part of the way (the same source quotes a range of 1060 NM - implying Berlin is right at the ragged edge of the Mosquitoâs range and so it will have to fly at the cruise speed). This makes the total trip time in the region of 4-5 hours (I canât find a plausible source for cruise speed not having a library available at this time of night, but I would assume it to be in the range 200-250 kts true air speed). Assuming the ground crew is on the ball and can turn around the aircraft in an hour (probably do-able, but I wouldnât like to make a habit of it) that gives you a total duration of 9-11 hours of darkness required. In a Northern-European winter, thatâs pretty much assured.
Can I claim a banana too?
Edited to sort link
Bannanas on hold until I do some research. I wouldnt like to be in a second crew to Berlin by those figures.
However I dont doubt it can be done, I just think is propaganda to say it was done with any regularity.
Just popping down to Grocer, I hope you both like Fyffes.
OK guys. I have searched for any evidence of regular double flights and cant find any.
Iâm not sure you are aware of the processes involved in turning around an ac in an hour that has just flown to Berlin and back though.
Anyway, Mosquitoes came in many guises. In Bomber Command they were invariably used as Pathfinders. I dont see a reason to go back to Berlin and re-mark a target after the show has started. Target marker tended to hang around and re-mark if necessary.
Any way, I agree that the premise is correct and it could be done. Iâm not certain it was though. However I phoned the RAF Air Historical Branch and posed the question. Hopefully they can dig out the answer.
Bannanas on holdâŚ
If anything whatsoever isnât exactly right, you donât go back that night. The aircraft were relatively simple, so the maintenence needed between flights is likely to be limited to the engines and any electronics. The engines are likely to be on hours (10, 100, 1000, etc.) which will again give you a go/no go decision. If theyâre fine too just refill any consumables, run some checks and bomb it up again.
Electronics will be a binary situation - the way they fail, if itâs working you generally donât need to do anything to it as the replacement is as likely to fail.
With a clued up ground crew I reckon that could probably be done within an hour.
Rightie-O
Ive just had a wonderfull conversation about Mossieâs and flying to Berlin 2 times in one winters night.
There was no directive from Command to do it. It may seem feasible but the normal Berlin trip was about 8 hours even in a Mossie.
This was due to the fact that aircraft did not take the direct route to Berlin and had to avoid certain areas on their way. Concentrations of Flak etc.
AHB, also stated that it may have been done as a one off, though they couldnt find evidence for even this.
As they should know - I have eaten your Bannanas.
My question would be why? If it is so they can hit the same target why change crew. Were they short of AC to do the job? Why not have two waves 4 hours apart if you are trying to attack repair / rescue parties? Why put an experienced crew and a good AC at risk when another method can be found to do the job?
So why?
I would agree with the above. I would also add that if you have a specific Squadron in mind that did this the Air Historical Branch told me that they would pull the records and find out.
My vote would have to be for the USA but not for any sort of patriotic reasoning. Specifically the B-17G. This in no way should indicate a lack of respect for the British or even the German bombers in anyway. I think the difference was the fact that the USA was seperated from the war, it gave them a relatively safe place to develope and test their designs. The B-17 wiins my vote because of its verstility and its reputaion of bringing its crew home in the most dire of circumstances. It served in the Pacific, Northat Africa and England. The B-29 was a great plane but it did have an accuracy problem due to its high altitude and speed. The B-24 had a better payload but is was a mule to fly and as I understand it was a nightmare when it came to maintainance. The Lancaster and the Mosquito were both excellant aircrafts and it makes me wish that England had better resources and a place to work from. If they had they most likely would have produced aircrafts that far outshone those the USA produced. But that is all a bunch of âwhat ifsâ. As it is the B-17 was used extnsively to great success in all theaters of operation and by most of the allied nations. Then again I guess it could depend on how you look at it. The Lancaster was designed to carry out night operations, a mission in which it excelled, the B-29 was designed for the long distances required for the South Pacific (part of the reason it never faced the Germanâs, it wasnât meant for the ETO) again it excelled at its mission, the B-17 and the B-24 were designed for daylight strategic bombing and they both performed their missions excellently. So ach plane was superior to all the others at any given moment or mission. Overall though I still have to vote for the USA and the B-17G.
I think I would question the premise of this forum. Itâs rather hard to compare OVERALL all of the bombers used and developed during WWII. For instance, how can you compare a Mosquito with the Lanc, with B-29? It makes no sense. Obviously, B-29 was a pinnacle of the tech development in WWII. But, was the Lanc better tahn Liberator? I dare say that Marauder was at least as good as a Mosquito, and DEFINITELY could take more punishment. I would suggest to split bombers into categories based on their designation and use. For instance, both Mosquito and Marauder were used more for strafing and low-level attack (just like a Beaufighter, which likely was better than both) while Mitchels, Bostons, and Wellingtons (sorry, Whimpy) had different use. But, in Africa, Liberators were fying missions with Marauders as escorts. And different theaters saw diferent use of the same plane. I even read about Ju88âs used as long-range hunters against Blenheims and Halifaxes.
so maybe we should decide what was the best bomber for a specific task?
As for only the top 2 heavies alone it is totally a tie between the Lancaster and B-17. While both were quite different they both excelled in their tasks. They are mechanically very truely âapples and oragnesâ yet potent in completion of their usually very different types of missions.
Piotr, the Mosquito was not a ground attack aircraft, it was far too fragile fr that task on a regular day-to-day basis.
Although it did carry out some special Bombing missions.
The Mosquito was possibly the most versatile Bomber of WW2. It could carry almost the same bomb weight as a B-17 which needed 10 crew! It was a superlative Night Fighter, a recce ac as well as numerous other roles.
OK, movies notwithstanding (633 Squadron) I KNOW I read about ground attack (strafing) Mossie missions. I mean that sucker had 4 machinguns in the nose, just like a specially fitted Marauders. And DO know that Mossie was a similar size as a Lightning, B-110, or a P-68 Now, I just GOT to get you a reference on that if anything to make sure Iâm not making a fool out of myself. :?
AHA!!!
âLike the bombers, de Havilland built sub-variants of the Mosquito adapted for day and night fighter operations. A Mosquito crew claimed the first air-to-air victory over a Dornier 217 twin-engine bomber on May 29, 1942. Many German fighters were also destroyed. From June 1944 to March 1945, Mosquitoes crews worked to defeat a menace hitherto unseen in warfare, mass attacks by low-flying, robot flying bombs propelled by pulse jet engines, the German V-1 âbuzz bombâ vengeance weapons. In operations against shipping, Mosquitoes sank supply ships, and at least ten German U-boats along the French and Norwegian coasts. Mosquito crewmen flew many other unique missions including an unarmed, scheduled airline service between Scotland and Sweden. After the war, Mosquitoes laden with cameras surveyed all of India, Cambodia, and Australia. The last operational combat mission ended on December 21, 1955, when a Mosquito PR. 34A conducted a reconnaissance mission above suspected communist strongholds hidden in the jungles of Malayaâ
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/dehavilland_mosquito.htm
Sorry Piotr- Around here itâs just not possible, even on a topic that turned from âwhich country had the best bombersâ to what was THE best bomber for a certian job, to not get killed for your opinion. And how is it possible to âproveâ that one bomber was the âbestâ?
Itâs just who thinks what anyway so donât take it seriously. Your opinion is a godd as anyoneâs, maybe better.
I agree with you, its just that the Mosquito wasnt used as a Ground Attacker of choice every day, although it was an âIntruderâ. What I meant is it was not used in the close support role. I very much agree that it did all the other things.
Gotcha. BTW that article was very interesting in describing various problems faced by the De Havilland in, among others, making the plywood for the wings covers strong enough, and placing the radiators in the wings with slits in leading edges to let the air flow through. Apparently, this made the Mosquito so fast, unlike the Spitfire which had the rads hanging under a wing creating drag.
However, my statemnt about the cathegories still stands.
Here are my picks (non-technical, purely based on the books I read)
- Mosquito (light)
- Mitchel (medium)
- Lancaster (early heavy) and Liberator (later-heavy)
- B-17 (late heavy)
- B-29 - completely set apart, really the first post-war bomber.
Piotr- thatâs a very logical list.
Twitch, Iâll take it as a compliment. Obviously, I skipped Beaufighter that was LOVED for the same reason as Lightning and A-20 ( the Warthog) - heavily shielded cockpit between 2 engines.
BTW, Iâm going to get in trouble re the size of my avatar, arenât I? But, I donât know how to make it smaller⌠:oops:
Post your avatar in the avatars bit and someone will shrink it for you mate.