Hi Greg, you might find the following of some interest. Taken from my Dad's logbook as a navigator in 107 Sq. flying FB VI's in the last months of the war, he regularly flew night ops from Epinoy near Cambrai around the north west area of Germany. His longest trips were up to 4hrs 10mins to the Hamburg area, a distance of about 400mls/640kms. Bomb load 4 x 500lbs. They used to stooge around under 1000ft looking for trains etc. One entry for an op in the Hanover area states:- 'Train stopped at Eschede, 1 bomb dropped ahead on rly line. 2nd bomb on train. Cannon and MG attacks on train. Strikes all along train. No flamers.' Quite good targeting! Navigation was by Gee.
That's funny, but partially true. I think another factor is that most media coverage, books, movies etc. focus much more on the fighter side of things. How often do you hear about the bomber side of the P-51 in WW2? I'll bet it's 10:1 if favor of talking about it as a fighter. With the Mosquito is 10:1 the other direction. A lot of people don't even know it was also a fighter.
Remember, it's not just a "gun nose", it's also a differently shaped windscreen, flat vs. split, and I think that's where most of the difference was. Great stuff, Greg, thanks!
Hi Greg, good research, thank you for producing your podcasts. I was involved in the Canadian restoration of VR796 in the 1980's.....a highlight in my aviation career. The Mossie no doubt holds a special place for me.......and has got to be one of the most beautiful aircraft ever designed.....IMHO. VR796 is a B Mk35 with two stage two speed Merlin 113/114's.......very fast and maneuverable enough for a bomber. However, the Mossie's controls could become heavy at higher speeds.....one just has to look at the video's of KA114 where the skipper at times has to double hand it. Later models of the P-38 had boosted ailerons a definite advantage at higher speeds. If you want an interceptor.......its the P-38.....If you want a bomber that can strafe.....its the FBVI Mossie. A couple of Mosquito Technical Notes if I may: First: The Mossie did have fowler flaps....Mossie flaps were an airfoil with the hinge below the wingline, arcing downwards leaving a gap between the flap and flapwell. Second: You might find the flat windscreen of the FBVI contribute to overall drag vs the cleaner canopy of the bomber (I think the Bomber looks prettier.....I'm biased) Third: Not so much a technical point......the Mosquito prototype was under construction during the Battle of Britain and almost cancelled so DeHavilland could focus on putting bomb racks on Tiger Moths (amongst other things). The demand was for fighters, not bombers......so I would take the initial order where the bulk is primarily "F" variants......with a some consideration of the events of the time. Thanks Greg
Dear Greg and other watchers; The fact that the P-38 has contrarotating props makes a HUGE difference to Gun aiming and rocket/bomb use. The ability to make fine corrections WO the P-Factor pushing the nose all over the place is dramatic to say the least! For my thesis, I watched thousands of hours of gun camera film for both guns and rockets, and it is incredibly easy to tell whether the film is from a single engine fighter or twin engined P-38! The effect for the Mossy is even more pronounced as there is twice as much push from it's two un-handed engines/props. As an example, watch some GCF on RUclips to see the bullet strike pattern describe a big circle around the target being strafed, when the plane only has one engine. Or the bullet stream pushed wide of the entire train as the pilot tries to correct for range! I love your channel and will continue to support you.
In 'Fighter Command' by Jeffrey L Ethel and Robert Sand, Page 51, Hubert Zemke states: "Taken alone, the above statements would conclude that the P-38 had no outstanding features...it did! As a gun platform it was steady as a shooting stand....With a little trim for buildup of speed a pilot could ride directly into a target."
Great video, Greg. During the War, these were not old airplanes, they all were brand new, would smell of fresh paint, leather, rubber, new aluminum, new engines, some maybe just days old. And all were leading edge technology. Mosquitoes are so pretty, that's where they win contests. Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
@@CreeperOnYourHouse And the smell of balsa wood and glue, Quasi the first sandwich construction, that then took decades until it was revived in form of polyester or epoxi sandwiches for boats or car bodies.
I find the history of Allison engines in WW2 hard to understand. In some applications they seem to have performed really well, and even the P40s with Allison engines provided vital service to the RAF USAF RAAF etc. I am not sure if the Merlin was necessarily always better. I just don't know.
I used E6B as navigator on RNZAF Sunderland flying boats in conjunction with drift sight and G4 GPI, around the South Pacific since no radio navigation aids. Quite accurate really but high workload when cloud cover did not permit Astro navigation with the Mk9 sextant.
The best all around aircraft of ww2 imho, so many different rules covered. Got to sit in one when I was in R.A.F in the 80s. it had been in both Mosquito films. The Mossys little brother The Hornet just to late for ww2 was mad fast around 475mph . Thanks posting this, very informative .
Greg demonstrated the paucity of reliable data on World War Two aircraft and bombing performance. Greg mentioned the Corsair (F4U, FG-1, F3A and during the Korean Conflict the AU-1) which stayed in production longer. For the Close Air Support mission, the AU-1 a decade after Greg's 1942 period had multiple advantages--but lower ceiling and top speed than the F4U-5 that was in service at the same time as the AU-1. The AU-1 inherited a blind bombing system that was poached from the Regulus cruise missile; the ground station would control the Corsair in level flight by radar and radio and when the Corsair was in the correct position over the target at altitudes of up to 15,000 feet would drop the bomb and hit the intended target (accuracy unavailable) at night, in fog, even in thunderstorms. Many single-engine Navy aircraft were equipped with drift meters because those were required for both dive bombers and for torpedo bombers and the PBY when used in the level bomber role. Range? Lindberg managed to greatly extend the ranges of both Corsair and P-38 by throttle and mixture manipulation. Bomb load? Lindy again managed to increase the Corsair's bomb load to 4000 pounds, more than either the Dauntless or Helldiver (SB2C) and twice what the Avenger could carry as a level bomber. The Corsair and Avenger served together in Korea until replaced by the Douglas A-1 Skyraider. Note that Lindberg pioneered overloading the Lightning with 4000-pound bomb loads, too. In the Close Air Support role, Mosquitos and Lightnings had the advantage of two engines--and disadvantages of liquid-cooled engines. The ground attack AU-1 was slower but more heavily armored and had a reinforced airframe. I don't think that the Mosquito was used much for close air support--but the Lightning was. Which was better? It mattered more what the politics were (90%) and logistics (9%)--the 1% of performance factors not only were swallowed up by national pride but there seems to have been little difference between the two when used for long-range bombing missions. One droop-snoot P-38 (around 1943/1944) would lead a formation of standard bomb-laden P-38s and the modified P-38 had a bombardier station with Norden bombsight and extensive navigation instruments--the formation would drop their bombs as soon as their lead P-38 did. This got the P-38's out of the range of ground fire, the P-38's flew faster than B-17's, might be mistaken for a regular fighter sweep, and after the P-38' dropped their bombs all the Lightings except for the unarmed Droop Snoot P-38 WERE fighters. p38assn.org/variations-droopsnoot/ Hisotry is rumor, gossip and lies. Thank you, Greg, for sorting them out for us.
This was really interesting. A lot closer in some regards than I had expected. It is interesting just how badly the gun nose affects the Mosquito, which was otherwise the fastest production aircraft of the time. I suspect the reason for this is that the protruding muzzles and the ports they sat in probably fouled the airflow over the nose and fuselage really badly due to their prominent placement. I am impressed by the Lightning's speed even under load. Really interesting that they put a drift meter on the Mosquito. It's those minor things that get overlooked when comparing stat-sheets that really make the difference in practice.
@@drewski5730 Yeah I know, I was just wondering why the guns have such a big effect on the drag coefficient when nose-mounted compared to wing-mounted guns. As far as I understand, the drag coefficient is basically a summation of the actual aerodynamic effects on the aeroplane. If I had to guess, I would suggest that the additional turbulence probably screws up the aerodynamics of the hull which would have been designed for laminar flow.
@@Jupiter__001_ like I said before, it increases the coefficient of drag. Specifically parasite drag, which is the type of drag that increases with speed. We don’t know that there is a bigger increase in drag from nose mounted guns compared to wing mounted guns, because you’d be comparing different models of airplanes at different speeds, or apples and oranges. In addition, not all mounted guns have the same streamlining and installation which makes comparing drag created from different gun mounts essentially impossible. Generally speaking, airplanes with wing mounted guns always had wing mounted guns, and we will never know how much of a reduction in speed those caused on say a spitfire or an FW190 compared to say a clean wing design. Lastly, the mossie had 4x20mm nose mounted cannons in addition to 4x.303 machine guns, which is ridiculous and I don’t think any fighter at the time had that kind of firepower; that’s 8 guns, and 4 are huge guns, it shouldn’t be surprising it caused plenty of drag, which also means again there is no means of apples to apples comparison.
@@drewski5730 You can try to compare the max speeds of Spitfire IX and XI, or Spitfire XIV and XIX. Wing guns no wing guns. In the merlin versions, I think we did not have the exact same engine. On the griffon versions, they had the same engine. Top speeds were 448 vs 460 mpg. But the XIX had a slightly cleaner windshield.
Hello Greg. I think that Mossie was created to perform "Lone Wolf Missions" over Europe, thats why second crew member was a big benefit, especially in "navigation mode". So, in case of type of attacks the most similat after war jet aircraft for the Mossie will be A-6 Intruder. Lightning wasnt designed in this philosophy of using.
Excellent, watching your uploads I'm reminded very much of Scotsman John Reith - MD of the BBC in 1923 who said his values were to "Inform , Educate & Entertain"
Another great contribution to our understanding of WW2 military aviation. Thank you sir! ACTION ITEM: We very much look forward to an episode on the, until today totally unknown to some of us, pilots, engineers and aviation buffs, (magical) DRIFT METER!!!!
The Mosquito was originally designed as an unarmed daylight bomber & build in dedicated variants for different roles (F, FB, B & PR). The P-38 was designed as a twin-engine fighter that like most fighters during WW2 (either from the offset or added to later models) became fighters that could (& did) carry bombs &/or other ground attack ordnance.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Comment was meant to add context not to imply that since the origins (&/or later development) of the two planes was different that it is invalid to compare them in roles that they both were used for.
@@chadmueller6128 Photo Recce and Fighter versions of the Mosquito were ordered by the RAF well before the first prototype was completed. RAF were not interested in the aircraft as a bomber until the bombload was doubled with the modification of the tail section of the standard 500lb bomb. At that point 9 of the PR Mk 1's were modified into the first B Mk IV's. It was the fighter mission that got the aircraft though the door and the very first large order for the aircraft after the prototype flew was for 150 fighter versions.
I get you. A bomber that was then configured as a fighter/bomber vs a fighter that was then configured as a fighter/bomber. Different origins but later a similar role.
Thanks for making this series! I'm still by no means an expert, but the technical detail you talk about on your channel in general does go a long way to understanding not just the what, but the *why* of aviation. As for the art - it is quite nice indeed! It reminds me of high budget anime productions just before those switched away from cel animation
As a kid I had a set war plane cards with pictures on the front and the specs on the back. Id lay them out on the floor in order of which I thought was best to worst. P-38 was best because it was the coolest looking, period.
That's pretty much it. I guess the whole conclusion is that while the FB6 appears to come out a little behind purely by the numbers, the total package adds up to put it ahead.
That longer range could also mean less strain on the logistics. You fly the Mozzie from airfields in GB that has an easier supply route than a front line airfield that has to compete for road and truck space with all the other supply that has to be transported to the front.
Just a comment on the 2 seats better navigation gear. American fighter bombers would commonly fly in formationwith a medium or heavy bomber, who would act as a pathfinder and lead the group to the target.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Please compare the (Sea) Hornet with the Dornier Pfiel. DORNIER: "Vee vill make ein super-fighter with a crazy unworkable design, difficult to build, tricky to fly, it'll take years to correct ze faults but vee need it next week". DE HAVILLAND: "Slap a single-seat cockpit on a Mossie and make 1,000 small detail upgrades".
Greg, for info on B-17 accuracy as reported by the USAAF read Donald Miller, “Masters of the Air”. TY for a great presentation. When you said “I have left handed cups” I cracked up!
Well-done Gregg, yet another great and interesting video from you. Good that you spell-out the truths of these things where too many people don't think things through, mainly through ignorance. Love your videos and the variety of them.
For CAS durability was very important as well. There was a big difference between them in this regard. Features such as self sealing tanks are important there.
Really interesting, thank you. I think Gilles Messier from the channel "Our own devices" has a video on a drift meter, showing the actual device and explaining how it was used.
Great topic. The airspeed eating gun nose on the Mosquito was unexpected for me to have made so much extra drag. It makes me wonder how much faster a P-38 without gun nose would be? Like a P-38 Photo Recon.Version, is there any data on if and if so, how much faster it was?
Maybe a broader analysis about shifting roles in aircraft function might complement this topic. I believe the 38 was designed as an interceptor, the 47 as high altitude escort, the Mossy as recon and medium bomber. Anyway, awesome, as usual, from a dedicated Creator whose content is head and shoulders above the usual banality of YT.
Amazing video as always. FYI @8:50 the movie you referenced is called "The Bombardment" and its on netflix. It's about this exact mosquito raid and the school bombing. It's pretty decent!
Late in the war Bomber Command switched fro using a bomber in the pathfinder force to Mosquitoes to drop the target markers to get more accurate bombing. I guess that had something to do with the drift meter & endurance over the target. Thanks for the video.
They used the Oboe for marking targets. According to Wikipedia "by far the most accurate bombing system used during the war." So not just the aircraft, but a platform for Oboe.
@@fletchwine I love Wikipedia don't get me wrong but taking such dubious sentences as this at face value probably isn't wise. Hell I'd edit it out because trying to cite such vague boasts is a fool's errand. It's fairly self evident that any fighter bomber (or pure light bomber) will have greater accuracy, the mossie was probably just the best pick for range especially if it was the dedicated bomber variant.
Well done, Greg, as usual. My grandson has developed an interest in the P-38 after a couple visits to Fagen Fighters WW 2 Museum in rural Granite Falls, MN, so I've gotten him a couple books on the plane for his 13th birthday. I want to vouch for the suggestion that a lot of WW 2 fighters could be fairly capable fighter-bombers, as well. My dad's combat tour in the Philippines in 1944 featured 4 aerial kills (1 Kate, 1 Zeke, 2 Tojos), but he also got a 5-inch HVAR hit on a Japanese destroyer in Manila Bay, and put a 500-lb. bomb through the flight deck of the IJN Zuiho on October 25, 1944. Someone in the Navy must have recognized that talent because, after his tour in the F6F-5 and VF-19 was over, he was reassigned to VBF-150, a designated "bomber-fighter" squadron flying the new F4U-4, and training for Operation Downfall, scheduled for the fall of 1945. Japan surrendered before they saw combat.
An excellent, comprehensively researched and forensic summary, and thanks for your hard work! There's only one metric you failed to explore - sexiness.
Here are some quotes from my uncle on accuracy and navigation .He was a pilot in 487 Sqn and flew in 'Operation Jericho' (Amiens Prison) His comment on navigation ' Daylight low level operations required much concentration on the part of the pilot and navigator. The navigator became very expert in map reading - one quarter of an inch to a mile maps at tree top level ' he likened it rally car driving. On accuracy they could ' take out any phone booth on any given street corner of any European City ' . That they could find there targets and accurately bomb while zigzagging over Europe shows skills of these pilot/navigator teams in their Mosquitos. The men of 21 , 464 and 487 squadrons that took part in Operation Jericho were experienced teams who had plenty of practice at hitting small targets ie V1 sites . The targets at the prison were the walls by 487 sqn and then the guards quarters and ends of the main building by 464 sqn . The whole prison was not the target just small parts of it . Given the type of bombs available accuracy was very good. The book ' The Jail Busters' by Robert Lyman covers the French Resistance/MI6 and Mosquitos part.
Non-pilots don't realize just how much your view of the landscape changes when you are airborne, and how difficult it actually is to navigate. Navigating by pilotage (finding and fixing your position from known landmarks) is pretty tricky in a Cessna doing 120 knots at 4000' altitude, believe it or not... I can't imagine how hard it was to do so at 350+ knots while flying at 100 feet off the deck! The low-level nav skills of those WWII Mosquito crews was really, really impressive.
Greg, this was an excellent presentation. As aircraft enthusiasts it is too easy for us to compare simplistic performance numbers and conclude, "Fighter X was superior to Fighter Y," and consider it the end of the story. The truth is much, much complicated, as you point out so well in this video. As a pilot myself, I know first-hand just how much the instrumentation an airplane was/is equipped with is a HUGE factor in that airplane's effectiveness, ease of piloting, and so forth. I've been curious for a long time as to why Mosquitoes were so effective as the Pathfinders for the RAF's night-bombing raids, and guessed that they were using different bomb vs fuel and airspeed calculations to get that done, as you've pointed out in this video. But the problem of navigation at night over Germany with zero local meterological data has always puzzled me. Directional radio nav technology in those days was not much to go by (considering how much better it is now, and knowing how primitive it STILL is compared to GPS navigation!)... so I have wondered if there was something else we don't hear about? So I was today years old when I learned about the B-3 Drift Meter, and NOW it starts to make sense! How about you do a deep dive into the B-3 Drift Meter now? (EDIT: I just searched and found an excellent video explaining the B-3: ruclips.net/video/Z0kz41fXWmM/видео.html )
Correction: the raid was Gestapo HQ in Copenhagen on March 21, 1945. However, Gestapo HQ in Aarhus was attacked in Oct. 31, 1944. The HQ was housed in a part of Aarhus University.
Thanks for great content! For targets such as trains, depots, airfields 500 kg bomb - and even 250 kg - is overkill. 100 kg bomb is enough: its blast can throw the locomotive off the tracks, or turn the plane upside down. Also lighter bomb can be safely dropped for lower ceiling. More bombs give more chances to hit the targets. 8x100kg bombs (250 lbs) were more efficient than 4x250kg (not mentioning 2x500kg), but there were no hardpoints for such load in most of the FB Mosquitos, so Brits went for 250kg bomb (4x250kg is much better than 4x100kg). You should take it into account, when consider P-38G. Its bombload, that really counted in Europe, was merely 500 kg (2x250kg bombs). 500 kg bombs can be useful against Japaneese battleships or bridges, but in Europe there was need for saturation not for the big caliber, so later P-38J had 4 hardpoints to carry 4x250 kg bombs instead of 2x500 kg. I think, none of those two were proper fighter bombers. P-38 was a fighter, while Mosquito was level bomber (fast). And they were costly. P-40 was better, or even Typhoon.
Great video Greg. The Mozzie is my favorite WWII A/C. Several things get me about the armchair experts, too many dwell of the Victors' A/C, all sides had some pretty damn good airplanes and the fair share of lemons. The other thing is comparing this machine to that machine... woodworkers have more than one type of saw, each type of saw cuts wood, one uses the saw most appropriate to the job as you would with any tool, aircraft, ship, truck or knife. Love your videos, always well researched and I most appreciate the fact that when you become aware of any error, you are quick to explain how it came to be and the correction... respect.
Plenty of Arm chair fighter pilots in the comments. 😂 Great video Greg, it highlights the nearly impossible task of comparing WW2 fighters against each other; either the data isn’t there, or it’s not an apples to apples comparison. I try to explain people this over the internet, but it won’t change the fact they’ve already made up their minds that X > Y.
One thing I'd argue gives the P-38 a huge leg up for bombing accuracy is the canopy gives way better visibility over the nose and especially looking down off the sides of the nose, so the Lightning pilot can see his target better, earlier, and for longer
This may be a huge leg up in a controlled test environment where all the pilots have to care about is hitting a known target, but in reality I would take a 2nd crewmember over superior cockpit visibility any day. Especially considering their job as a navigator would be to get me to the target and back. This gives the mossie pilot a serious advantage in the likelihood of not only finding the target but having a good approach in the first place, where the target is easily visible and no last minute corrections are needed. That being said, visibility would be disproportionately significant against moving or otherwise difficult to spot/track targets. The lightning also gets points in that regard thanks to its superior manoeuvrability. So I wouldn't be surprised if it proves the better machine for hounding a convoy in particular. This is purely speculation but I reckon you can see this understood by real mission planners too, American fighter bombers were quite often sent against just such targets while mossies were at their best doing precision strikes on known stationary high value targets. Horses for courses.
As well as that gun nose, don't the fighter spec Mosquitos get a flat armoured windscreen? I can see that being rather higher drag than the curved unarmoured one.
Fascinating info and comparisons between the two As an Australian i like both and wish i saw a P-38L in the same markings and silver as our Mossies and Mustangs Also i think ive seen Spacers work on Tex Talks Battletech Seies of Video Doco/Essays
The Mosquito did have amazing bombing accuracy..... At low level, with some of the best crews in the RAF specifically trained for that particular role!! In other words it was largely the skill and training of a very specialist crew in a very specialist role that gave the Mosquito its famed bombing accuracy. Even the famed Pathfinders, which marked targets for the following bomber streams during RAF night bombing raids were only accurate *in comparison* to the standard accuracy of the bombers. And again, those Pathfinder aircraft had exceptionally highly trained crews, including the best bomb aimers in the RAF.... I love the Mozzie, and as a Brit it has a special place in my heart, however its famed accuracy has, like many wartime myths (cough cough, Norden bombsight, cough cough), been somewhat... exaggerated.... And yes, that is a little British understatement there. Got to have some right? Its one of the things we are know for after all1
So the De Havilland had better range and better navigational tech. I didn't know that. I just thought it was a really cool wooden plane that beat the odds. Thanks for posting this.
Hello Greg - I would very much a mug with a "Greg taught me everything I know" sign and pictures of various details like manifold pressure gauges, the P-47 throttle quadrant and the like. Not sure you would sell something like that due to your modesty, but it would depict the rough truth about us regular viewers of this channel. (typo corrected - maybe it ought to end with ", except grammar")
One plane that I think makes an interesting comparison with these two is the P1Y Ginga. It was mostly a pure light bomber, but night fighter variants were made, and its speed and maneuverability made it better than your average light bomber in that role. It had a long range and could do dive bombing, increasing it accuracy compared to level bombing. It could also do torpedo bombing, though it's unclear if the bomb bay doors had to be removed to fit them or not. Definitely even further on the bomber end of the spectrum than even the Mosquito, but it is still an interesting reference in a few areas.
20:55 Greg, Europe was probably unaware of this. Out in the Pacific, Charles Lindburg was getting extensive enhancements to the P-38 range. In Barrett Tillman's book "Corsair" it comes up because Lindburg did the same thing with the Marines. Nothing terribly outrageous was done to accomplish this. Lindburg simply looked up the manufactured spec of manifold pressure, and discovered the pilots were trained to operate quite a bit under it. The pilots were convinced the engines would seize up until he demonstrated his point. He also worked out some dive-bombing techniques for the Corsair. Do you have any information/insights to confirm this?
Loving this comparison series. It would be interesting to see another of your favorite airplanes, the Beaufighter, in this comparison. I suspect it may be off chart low on airspeed.
Apologies if this is noted elsewhere... "Mosquito: Under the Radar " by Rowland White is an excellent account of the Copenhagen and other raids flown by Mossie crews. By the way, all of White's books are excellent. Read them all in the last two months.
WWII US Bombers has a good video explaining how a drift meter was used. I can’t seem to share the link, but WWII US Bombers drift meter should get you there. As always, excellent work Greg.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles it was about the B 17’s scope. He’s generally pretty focused on his channel’s named topic. But he has an actual drift meter and a set up that shows how it was used. It’s a simple but very effective demonstration.
I just love your real deep dive reviews, opens up eyes on topics very much. One question: I know they came later - with the J and L models - but the Droopsnoot and Pathfinders usage with conventional P-38s would be a good topic too. Why and how were they used and how effective or in effective were they?
Potential future subject for you - what was the Mosquito of 1940? The RAF hoped it was the Bristol Blenheim (or even the Fairey Battle) It was actually the Martin Maryland
Great video, thanks Greg! I couldn’t believe all the trolls & fanboys on the prior video that seriously claimed the mosquito was effectively a “smart weapon” with super accuracy that could have achieved with less bombs what heavies like the b17 & Lancaster did for the 8th Air Force & bomber command in an alternative history but this wasn’t done due to stupidity or conspiracy..
Without bias between the two but will comment on the Mosquito. Adaption to perform specific missions: Highball bomber, as mentioned in the comments, an anti ship/sub using a very effective, Molins Airborne 6 pounder (57mm) class M gun firing (2950 ft/sec) one shell just under a second cyclic rate without ever damaging the mounting structure of the planes fitted with it. 900lbs of armour fitted and the inherent strength of the airframe gave them better survivability. Experiments were conducted to consider a 94mm cannon the year before, successful tested after the war ended. A mosquito pilot interview recounted an interdiction flight were they successfully skipped bombed into the entrance of a train tunnel without the aid of practicing for the attempt. The bomb bay made it so the two bombs had a better chance of going into the opening. Rockets; P-38 10 x M8s with a 4.3 lb warhead. Mosquito 8 x a choice of multiples the largest a 60 lb warhead. As always, a concise explanation, Greg.
Thanks, but all those things you mentioned came later. This is a comparison of the P-38G and FB VI from mid 1942 to mid 1943. That's important to keep in mind. If we go past mid 1943 we have to use the P-38J or later and that makes the comparison quite lopsided.
The Highball was never used, it wasn't even a good idea and thank God they figured that out before they tried to use it, by the time it would have been at it's release point it'd already be inside of a ships innermost ring of air defense guns which means there's a good chance none of them would have even made it to the release point, the aircraft having to fly at a perfectly straight course while lining up coupled with the reduced speed for release is the kind of thing AA gunners dream about, not to mention attacking fighter's, as many torpedo planes found out during the war the last place you want to be when fighter's attack you is at reduced speed that close to the water, you can't maneuver when attacked. Barnes' bouncing bomb worked initially on dams because they were lightly defended and the Germans really didn't forsee them being targeted because of the problems that had to be overcome but once the cat was out of the bag and they beefed up the defenses around dams it wasn't going to work again their and never would have in the first place with parked battleships because they already knew that'd be a target and had serious defensive rings around them. Bombing them from altitude with those massive bombs was the way to do that and is exactly what they realized before hand, the Highball process never was fully resolved of all of it's issues anyway, it was something they spent a lot of time and money on that never got used.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles 'What was the best fighter bomber of the second world war?' was the first question asked. Comparing the two specific aircraft was not my goal to draw an opinion for comment. The built in potential Mosquitos had for future adaption was more the point I was making. My favourite military aeroplane is the Douglas Skyraider, partly due to its incredible adaptability. The Mosquito does get more praise than it deserves a lot of the time so quality analysis such as yours help keep historical accuracy, accurate.
@@dukecraig2402 Thanks for commenting. To clarify. My original comment was in regard to how the Mosquito could be experimented with and adapted to perform specific missions. I was not suggesting the Highball was successful.
@@SEMJW Any aircraft could and plenty did have specialized versions of them built, look at how many versions of the B25 there was that were adapted to specialized roles, that's not something unique to the Mosquito, I don't know why everyone thinks it is, most likely because most people don't know it was built in dedicated versions and think it was a single model that could be reconfigured on the ground and perform all those different roles, I see it in comments all the time, the magical airplane that could be loaded with 4,000 lbs of bombs and dogfight it's way to and from targets all the way to Berlin and back, ah, no, that's not how it worked, but people like to take the top speed of the fighter variant, the all in bomb load of the bomber version, the range of one with a reduced bomb load because it has auxiliary fuel tanks in half it's bomb bay, and the altitude of the PR variant and claim it's a single model that could hit all those different performance parameters all at the same time, oh yea and it didn't need escorted on bombing mission's because it's also a fighter, ah, yea, they were escorted on mission's, by more fighter's than there'd be Mosquito's on the mission, Greg mentioned the mission in March of 45, it was Operation Carthage and 18 Mosquito's were escorted by 30 Mustang's, and even then nearly ¼ of them were shot down, look up any Mosquito bombing mission and that's about the ratio of escorts needed because unarmed bomb laden aircraft aren't about to dogfight.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Hi Greg, you might find the following of some interest. Taken from my Dad's logbook as a navigator in 107 Sq. flying FB VI's in the last months of the war, he regularly flew night ops from Epinoy near Cambrai around the north west area of Germany. His longest trips were up to 4hrs 10mins to the Hamburg area, a distance of about 400mls/640kms. Bomb load 4 x 500lbs. They used to stooge around under 1000ft looking for trains etc. One entry for an op in the Hanover area states:- 'Train stopped at Eschede, 1 bomb dropped ahead on rly line. 2nd bomb on train. Cannon and MG attacks on train. Strikes all along train. No flamers.' Quite good targeting! Navigation was by Gee.
The problem with the fighter-bombers that were not the Mosquito. Is that they haven't a movies with cool music made about them.🤪
That's funny, but partially true. I think another factor is that most media coverage, books, movies etc. focus much more on the fighter side of things. How often do you hear about the bomber side of the P-51 in WW2? I'll bet it's 10:1 if favor of talking about it as a fighter. With the Mosquito is 10:1 the other direction. A lot of people don't even know it was also a fighter.
Find the film 633 Squadron. Great music in that.
Inspired a scene in another movie...@@fredeagle3912
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles 10:1 is a very generous estimate.
30:1?
@@fredeagle3912
Now I cannot get the music out of my head.
Remember, it's not just a "gun nose", it's also a differently shaped windscreen, flat vs. split, and I think that's where most of the difference was.
Great stuff, Greg, thanks!
Cheers from Aotearoa Greg; birthplace of restored Mosquitos.
Flying the Mosquito as intended in DCS really gives an appreciation for these young aviators and all the challenges they faced when navigating.
Hi Greg, good research, thank you for producing your podcasts. I was involved in the Canadian restoration of VR796 in the 1980's.....a highlight in my aviation career. The Mossie no doubt holds a special place for me.......and has got to be one of the most beautiful aircraft ever designed.....IMHO. VR796 is a B Mk35 with two stage two speed Merlin 113/114's.......very fast and maneuverable enough for a bomber. However, the Mossie's controls could become heavy at higher speeds.....one just has to look at the video's of KA114 where the skipper at times has to double hand it. Later models of the P-38 had boosted ailerons a definite advantage at higher speeds. If you want an interceptor.......its the P-38.....If you want a bomber that can strafe.....its the FBVI Mossie. A couple of Mosquito Technical Notes if I may:
First: The Mossie did have fowler flaps....Mossie flaps were an airfoil with the hinge below the wingline, arcing downwards leaving a gap between the flap and flapwell.
Second: You might find the flat windscreen of the FBVI contribute to overall drag vs the cleaner canopy of the bomber (I think the Bomber looks prettier.....I'm biased)
Third: Not so much a technical point......the Mosquito prototype was under construction during the Battle of Britain and almost cancelled so DeHavilland could focus on putting bomb racks on Tiger Moths (amongst other things). The demand was for fighters, not bombers......so I would take the initial order where the bulk is primarily "F" variants......with a some consideration of the events of the time. Thanks Greg
Dear Greg and other watchers; The fact that the P-38 has contrarotating props makes a HUGE difference to Gun aiming and rocket/bomb use. The ability to make fine corrections WO the P-Factor pushing the nose all over the place is dramatic to say the least! For my thesis, I watched thousands of hours of gun camera film for both guns and rockets, and it is incredibly easy to tell whether the film is from a single engine fighter or twin engined P-38! The effect for the Mossy is even more pronounced as there is twice as much push from it's two un-handed engines/props.
As an example, watch some GCF on RUclips to see the bullet strike pattern describe a big circle around the target being strafed, when the plane only has one engine. Or the bullet stream pushed wide of the entire train as the pilot tries to correct for range!
I love your channel and will continue to support you.
In 'Fighter Command' by Jeffrey L Ethel and Robert Sand, Page 51, Hubert Zemke states: "Taken alone, the above statements would conclude that the P-38 had no outstanding features...it did! As a gun platform it was steady as a shooting stand....With a little trim for buildup of speed a pilot could ride directly into a target."
Great video, Greg. During the War, these were not old airplanes, they all were brand new, would smell of fresh paint, leather, rubber, new aluminum, new engines, some maybe just days old. And all were leading edge technology. Mosquitoes are so pretty, that's where they win contests. Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
You forgot the smell of freshly cut spruce.
@@CreeperOnYourHouse three layers of Ecuadorian balsa and three layers of birch?
@@CreeperOnYourHouse And the smell of balsa wood and glue,
Quasi the first sandwich construction, that then took decades until it was revived in form of polyester or epoxi sandwiches for boats or car bodies.
The 'gun nose' includes also those 4 x 20mm Hispano cannon with both muzzle ports and the weight of the weapons.
Yes, and it pays for it in speed. Great firepower though!
I find the history of Allison engines in WW2 hard to understand. In some applications they seem to have performed really well, and even the P40s with Allison engines provided vital service to the RAF USAF RAAF etc. I am not sure if the Merlin was necessarily always better. I just don't know.
@@lancaster5077 Seems to me that the Allison has maybe been underrated relative to the RR Merlin.
True. I suspect that Greg had or will do some vuds on this. He's a better man than I on these topics on every single way ! 🙂
P38 entered into the War effort in a subtle fashion barely!
I used E6B as navigator on RNZAF Sunderland flying boats in conjunction with drift sight and G4 GPI, around the South Pacific since no radio navigation aids. Quite accurate really but high workload when cloud cover did not permit Astro navigation with the Mk9 sextant.
The best all around aircraft of ww2 imho, so many different rules covered. Got to sit in one when I was in R.A.F in the 80s. it had been in both Mosquito films. The Mossys little brother The Hornet just to late for ww2 was mad fast around 475mph . Thanks posting this, very informative .
Greg demonstrated the paucity of reliable data on World War Two aircraft and bombing performance. Greg mentioned the Corsair (F4U, FG-1, F3A and during the Korean Conflict the AU-1) which stayed in production longer. For the Close Air Support mission, the AU-1 a decade after Greg's 1942 period had multiple advantages--but lower ceiling and top speed than the F4U-5 that was in service at the same time as the AU-1. The AU-1 inherited a blind bombing system that was poached from the Regulus cruise missile; the ground station would control the Corsair in level flight by radar and radio and when the Corsair was in the correct position over the target at altitudes of up to 15,000 feet would drop the bomb and hit the intended target (accuracy unavailable) at night, in fog, even in thunderstorms. Many single-engine Navy aircraft were equipped with drift meters because those were required for both dive bombers and for torpedo bombers and the PBY when used in the level bomber role. Range? Lindberg managed to greatly extend the ranges of both Corsair and P-38 by throttle and mixture manipulation. Bomb load? Lindy again managed to increase the Corsair's bomb load to 4000 pounds, more than either the Dauntless or Helldiver (SB2C) and twice what the Avenger could carry as a level bomber. The Corsair and Avenger served together in Korea until replaced by the Douglas A-1 Skyraider. Note that Lindberg pioneered overloading the Lightning with 4000-pound bomb loads, too.
In the Close Air Support role, Mosquitos and Lightnings had the advantage of two engines--and disadvantages of liquid-cooled engines. The ground attack AU-1 was slower but more heavily armored and had a reinforced airframe. I don't think that the Mosquito was used much for close air support--but the Lightning was.
Which was better? It mattered more what the politics were (90%) and logistics (9%)--the 1% of performance factors not only were swallowed up by national pride but there seems to have been little difference between the two when used for long-range bombing missions. One droop-snoot P-38 (around 1943/1944) would lead a formation of standard bomb-laden P-38s and the modified P-38 had a bombardier station with Norden bombsight and extensive navigation instruments--the formation would drop their bombs as soon as their lead P-38 did. This got the P-38's out of the range of ground fire, the P-38's flew faster than B-17's, might be mistaken for a regular fighter sweep, and after the P-38' dropped their bombs all the Lightings except for the unarmed Droop Snoot P-38 WERE fighters. p38assn.org/variations-droopsnoot/
Hisotry is rumor, gossip and lies. Thank you, Greg, for sorting them out for us.
Thanks Greg , fact based content and discourse with realistic conclusions we all need.
This was really interesting. A lot closer in some regards than I had expected. It is interesting just how badly the gun nose affects the Mosquito, which was otherwise the fastest production aircraft of the time. I suspect the reason for this is that the protruding muzzles and the ports they sat in probably fouled the airflow over the nose and fuselage really badly due to their prominent placement. I am impressed by the Lightning's speed even under load.
Really interesting that they put a drift meter on the Mosquito. It's those minor things that get overlooked when comparing stat-sheets that really make the difference in practice.
It's not just the nose. It's the flat fighter windscreen versus the streamlined v-shaped bomber windscreen
It’s the effect of increasing the coefficient of drag on the speed equation for further reading.
@@drewski5730 Yeah I know, I was just wondering why the guns have such a big effect on the drag coefficient when nose-mounted compared to wing-mounted guns. As far as I understand, the drag coefficient is basically a summation of the actual aerodynamic effects on the aeroplane.
If I had to guess, I would suggest that the additional turbulence probably screws up the aerodynamics of the hull which would have been designed for laminar flow.
@@Jupiter__001_ like I said before, it increases the coefficient of drag. Specifically parasite drag, which is the type of drag that increases with speed. We don’t know that there is a bigger increase in drag from nose mounted guns compared to wing mounted guns, because you’d be comparing different models of airplanes at different speeds, or apples and oranges. In addition, not all mounted guns have the same streamlining and installation which makes comparing drag created from different gun mounts essentially impossible. Generally speaking, airplanes with wing mounted guns always had wing mounted guns, and we will never know how much of a reduction in speed those caused on say a spitfire or an FW190 compared to say a clean wing design. Lastly, the mossie had 4x20mm nose mounted cannons in addition to 4x.303 machine guns, which is ridiculous and I don’t think any fighter at the time had that kind of firepower; that’s 8 guns, and 4 are huge guns, it shouldn’t be surprising it caused plenty of drag, which also means again there is no means of apples to apples comparison.
@@drewski5730 You can try to compare the max speeds of Spitfire IX and XI, or Spitfire XIV and XIX. Wing guns no wing guns. In the merlin versions, I think we did not have the exact same engine. On the griffon versions, they had the same engine. Top speeds were 448 vs 460 mpg. But the XIX had a slightly cleaner windshield.
Hello Greg. I think that Mossie was created to perform "Lone Wolf Missions" over Europe, thats why second crew member was a big benefit, especially in "navigation mode". So, in case of type of attacks the most similat after war jet aircraft for the Mossie will be A-6 Intruder.
Lightning wasnt designed in this philosophy of using.
Another similar plane in my opinion is the F-111.
Thanks Greg. Perfect timing. I will enjoy this
Love these videos! BTW I just noticed that many of the AI-voiced military vids on YT seem to have been trained on your narrations... :)
Arrogant Imitation.
Excellent, watching your uploads I'm reminded very much of Scotsman John Reith - MD of the BBC in 1923 who said his values were to "Inform , Educate & Entertain"
Sadly, nowadays it's 'misinform, indoctrinate and distract'.
Thanks Greg, excellent analysis - as always.
Just found out there are left handed mugs, no wonder the images always faced away from me! Thanks Greg's Wife for the knowledge
Another great contribution to our understanding of WW2 military aviation.
Thank you sir!
ACTION ITEM: We very much look forward to an episode on the, until today totally unknown to some of us, pilots, engineers and aviation buffs, (magical) DRIFT METER!!!!
I found out just how little I really knew about the Mosquito's capabilities. Thanks for a delightful video!
Greetings Greg!
You're like the cool uncle I never had. Thanks for all you do. Much love to my fellow nerds from Canada
The Mosquito was originally designed as an unarmed daylight bomber & build in dedicated variants for different roles (F, FB, B & PR). The P-38 was designed as a twin-engine fighter that like most fighters during WW2 (either from the offset or added to later models) became fighters that could (& did) carry bombs &/or other ground attack ordnance.
"originally" That's why I'm using the F.B. Mk VI and P-38G, not the "original" designs.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Comment was meant to add context not to imply that since the origins (&/or later development) of the two planes was different that it is invalid to compare them in roles that they both were used for.
@@chadmueller6128 Photo Recce and Fighter versions of the Mosquito were ordered by the RAF well before the first prototype was completed. RAF were not interested in the aircraft as a bomber until the bombload was doubled with the modification of the tail section of the standard 500lb bomb. At that point 9 of the PR Mk 1's were modified into the first B Mk IV's. It was the fighter mission that got the aircraft though the door and the very first large order for the aircraft after the prototype flew was for 150 fighter versions.
I get you. A bomber that was then configured as a fighter/bomber vs a fighter that was then configured as a fighter/bomber. Different origins but later a similar role.
@@richardvernon317 ;- That was the politics - but it was always designed as a pure unarmed bomber.
I learned something new today. I had no idea a drift indicator was a thing! Neat device!
The Mosquito has charisma!
Thanks Greg for the great content!
Thanks for making this series! I'm still by no means an expert, but the technical detail you talk about on your channel in general does go a long way to understanding not just the what, but the *why* of aviation.
As for the art - it is quite nice indeed! It reminds me of high budget anime productions just before those switched away from cel animation
As a kid I had a set war plane cards with pictures on the front and the specs on the back. Id lay them out on the floor in order of which I thought was best to worst. P-38 was best because it was the coolest looking, period.
Another fantastic video, thanks Greg for putting this together
Great technical discussion.
2 seats + more navigation gear > 1 seat + less navigation gear.
More range > less range
That's pretty much it. I guess the whole conclusion is that while the FB6 appears to come out a little behind purely by the numbers, the total package adds up to put it ahead.
That longer range could also mean less strain on the logistics. You fly the Mozzie from airfields in GB that has an easier supply route than a front line airfield that has to compete for road and truck space with all the other supply that has to be transported to the front.
Just a comment on the 2 seats better navigation gear. American fighter bombers would commonly fly in formationwith a medium or heavy bomber, who would act as a pathfinder and lead the group to the target.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Please compare the (Sea) Hornet with the Dornier Pfiel.
DORNIER: "Vee vill make ein super-fighter with a crazy unworkable design, difficult to build, tricky to fly, it'll take years to correct ze faults but vee need it next week".
DE HAVILLAND: "Slap a single-seat cockpit on a Mossie and make 1,000 small detail upgrades".
Greg, can you do something on the P-38k? Ta-52h performance in 1943!
Greg, for info on B-17 accuracy as reported by the USAAF read Donald Miller, “Masters of the Air”. TY for a great presentation. When you said “I have left handed cups” I cracked up!
Great video. Kudos to your artist too!
Great comparison over both posts. 👍
Thanks!
Thank you very much, I really appreciate it.
Well-done Gregg, yet another great and interesting video from you. Good that you spell-out the truths of these things where too many people don't think things through, mainly through ignorance. Love your videos and the variety of them.
For CAS durability was very important as well. There was a big difference between them in this regard. Features such as self sealing tanks are important there.
Really interesting, thank you. I think Gilles Messier from the channel "Our own devices" has a video on a drift meter, showing the actual device and explaining how it was used.
Great topic. The airspeed eating gun nose on the Mosquito was unexpected for me to have made so much extra drag. It makes me wonder how much faster a P-38 without gun nose would be? Like a P-38 Photo Recon.Version, is there any data on if and if so, how much faster it was?
Another awesome…. Perfectly fair comparison. Thank you for your time and many talents. All the best…. Chuck
Maybe a broader analysis about shifting roles in aircraft function might complement this topic. I believe the 38 was designed as an interceptor, the 47 as high altitude escort, the Mossy as recon and medium bomber. Anyway, awesome, as usual, from a dedicated Creator whose content is head and shoulders above the usual banality of YT.
Fabulous presentation! Your many hours of research 📚 is much appreciated. Thanks Greg. 😎 🛬
Amazing video as always. FYI @8:50 the movie you referenced is called "The Bombardment" and its on netflix. It's about this exact mosquito raid and the school bombing. It's pretty decent!
Late in the war Bomber Command switched fro using a bomber in the pathfinder force to Mosquitoes to drop the target markers to get more accurate bombing. I guess that had something to do with the drift meter & endurance over the target.
Thanks for the video.
That began in late 1942, so not that late.
They used the Oboe for marking targets.
According to Wikipedia "by far the most accurate bombing system used during the war." So not just the aircraft, but a platform for Oboe.
@@fletchwine what was the range ?
@@fletchwine I love Wikipedia don't get me wrong but taking such dubious sentences as this at face value probably isn't wise. Hell I'd edit it out because trying to cite such vague boasts is a fool's errand.
It's fairly self evident that any fighter bomber (or pure light bomber) will have greater accuracy, the mossie was probably just the best pick for range especially if it was the dedicated bomber variant.
@@nickdanger3802What was the principle?
It must surely have been different from two narrow radio beams intersecting.
Thanks for another great video Greg. I didn’t know about the drift meter, that explains a lot.
I love my large buildings to be stationary thank you.
Thunderbolt lighting and mosquito definitely in my top 5 of my favourite allied aircraft. Great video cheers.
Well done, Greg, as usual. My grandson has developed an interest in the P-38 after a couple visits to Fagen Fighters WW 2 Museum in rural Granite Falls, MN, so I've gotten him a couple books on the plane for his 13th birthday. I want to vouch for the suggestion that a lot of WW 2 fighters could be fairly capable fighter-bombers, as well. My dad's combat tour in the Philippines in 1944 featured 4 aerial kills (1 Kate, 1 Zeke, 2 Tojos), but he also got a 5-inch HVAR hit on a Japanese destroyer in Manila Bay, and put a 500-lb. bomb through the flight deck of the IJN Zuiho on October 25, 1944. Someone in the Navy must have recognized that talent because, after his tour in the F6F-5 and VF-19 was over, he was reassigned to VBF-150, a designated "bomber-fighter" squadron flying the new F4U-4, and training for Operation Downfall, scheduled for the fall of 1945. Japan surrendered before they saw combat.
That's incredible, thanks for your post Ray, I always enjoy them.
Wow, your dad seemed like a bad ass. He was pretty accomplished.
Excellent video Greg. Rock on!!!!!!
Well done Greg!
Another interesting and educational video. Good work Greg and Spacer.
An excellent, comprehensively researched and forensic summary, and thanks for your hard work! There's only one metric you failed to explore - sexiness.
Highly enjoyable. Informative as always.
Here are some quotes from my uncle on accuracy and navigation .He was a pilot in 487 Sqn and flew in 'Operation Jericho' (Amiens Prison) His comment on navigation ' Daylight low level operations required much concentration on the part of the pilot and navigator. The navigator became very expert in map reading - one quarter of an inch to a mile maps at tree top level ' he likened it rally car driving. On accuracy they could ' take out any phone booth on any given street corner of any European City ' .
That they could find there targets and accurately bomb while zigzagging over Europe shows skills of these pilot/navigator teams in their Mosquitos.
The men of 21 , 464 and 487 squadrons that took part in Operation Jericho were experienced teams who had plenty of practice at hitting small targets ie V1 sites . The targets at the prison were the walls by 487 sqn and then the guards quarters and ends of the main building by 464 sqn . The whole prison was not the target just small parts of it . Given the type of bombs available accuracy was very good. The book ' The Jail Busters' by Robert Lyman covers the French Resistance/MI6 and Mosquitos part.
Good post, but just to be clear I didn't say the whole prison was the target, the wall was targeted and a relatively large building.
Non-pilots don't realize just how much your view of the landscape changes when you are airborne, and how difficult it actually is to navigate. Navigating by pilotage (finding and fixing your position from known landmarks) is pretty tricky in a Cessna doing 120 knots at 4000' altitude, believe it or not... I can't imagine how hard it was to do so at 350+ knots while flying at 100 feet off the deck! The low-level nav skills of those WWII Mosquito crews was really, really impressive.
Greg, this was an excellent presentation. As aircraft enthusiasts it is too easy for us to compare simplistic performance numbers and conclude, "Fighter X was superior to Fighter Y," and consider it the end of the story. The truth is much, much complicated, as you point out so well in this video.
As a pilot myself, I know first-hand just how much the instrumentation an airplane was/is equipped with is a HUGE factor in that airplane's effectiveness, ease of piloting, and so forth. I've been curious for a long time as to why Mosquitoes were so effective as the Pathfinders for the RAF's night-bombing raids, and guessed that they were using different bomb vs fuel and airspeed calculations to get that done, as you've pointed out in this video. But the problem of navigation at night over Germany with zero local meterological data has always puzzled me. Directional radio nav technology in those days was not much to go by (considering how much better it is now, and knowing how primitive it STILL is compared to GPS navigation!)... so I have wondered if there was something else we don't hear about?
So I was today years old when I learned about the B-3 Drift Meter, and NOW it starts to make sense! How about you do a deep dive into the B-3 Drift Meter now? (EDIT: I just searched and found an excellent video explaining the B-3: ruclips.net/video/Z0kz41fXWmM/видео.html )
The film about the Aarhus Gestapo HQ raid which hit the school is called "The Shadow in My Eye". It is currently on Netflix, in the UK at least.
Correction: the raid was Gestapo HQ in Copenhagen on March 21, 1945. However, Gestapo HQ in Aarhus was attacked in Oct. 31, 1944. The HQ was housed in a part of Aarhus University.
Another Information Filled Video 😀😇😎 Thanks Greg 👍🏼👍🏼
Just watched the movie "The Bombardment" about the Copanhagen raid on "Shell House". Very good, but harrowing
Thanks for another great analysis.😊
Thanks for great content!
For targets such as trains, depots, airfields 500 kg bomb - and even 250 kg - is overkill. 100 kg bomb is enough: its blast can throw the locomotive off the tracks, or turn the plane upside down. Also lighter bomb can be safely dropped for lower ceiling.
More bombs give more chances to hit the targets. 8x100kg bombs (250 lbs) were more efficient than 4x250kg (not mentioning 2x500kg), but there were no hardpoints for such load in most of the FB Mosquitos, so Brits went for 250kg bomb (4x250kg is much better than 4x100kg).
You should take it into account, when consider P-38G. Its bombload, that really counted in Europe, was merely 500 kg (2x250kg bombs). 500 kg bombs can be useful against Japaneese battleships or bridges, but in Europe there was need for saturation not for the big caliber, so later P-38J had 4 hardpoints to carry 4x250 kg bombs instead of 2x500 kg.
I think, none of those two were proper fighter bombers. P-38 was a fighter, while Mosquito was level bomber (fast). And they were costly.
P-40 was better, or even Typhoon.
Great video Greg. The Mozzie is my favorite WWII A/C. Several things get me about the armchair experts, too many dwell of the Victors' A/C, all sides had some pretty damn good airplanes and the fair share of lemons. The other thing is comparing this machine to that machine... woodworkers have more than one type of saw, each type of saw cuts wood, one uses the saw most appropriate to the job as you would with any tool, aircraft, ship, truck or knife. Love your videos, always well researched and I most appreciate the fact that when you become aware of any error, you are quick to explain how it came to be and the correction... respect.
Plenty of Arm chair fighter pilots in the comments. 😂
Great video Greg, it highlights the nearly impossible task of comparing WW2 fighters against each other; either the data isn’t there, or it’s not an apples to apples comparison. I try to explain people this over the internet, but it won’t change the fact they’ve already made up their minds that X > Y.
One thing I'd argue gives the P-38 a huge leg up for bombing accuracy is the canopy gives way better visibility over the nose and especially looking down off the sides of the nose, so the Lightning pilot can see his target better, earlier, and for longer
This may be a huge leg up in a controlled test environment where all the pilots have to care about is hitting a known target, but in reality I would take a 2nd crewmember over superior cockpit visibility any day. Especially considering their job as a navigator would be to get me to the target and back. This gives the mossie pilot a serious advantage in the likelihood of not only finding the target but having a good approach in the first place, where the target is easily visible and no last minute corrections are needed.
That being said, visibility would be disproportionately significant against moving or otherwise difficult to spot/track targets. The lightning also gets points in that regard thanks to its superior manoeuvrability. So I wouldn't be surprised if it proves the better machine for hounding a convoy in particular.
This is purely speculation but I reckon you can see this understood by real mission planners too, American fighter bombers were quite often sent against just such targets while mossies were at their best doing precision strikes on known stationary high value targets. Horses for courses.
The Mossie bombers had a clear nose . The navigator doubled up as bombardier.
Dear God I love your videos.
As well as that gun nose, don't the fighter spec Mosquitos get a flat armoured windscreen? I can see that being rather higher drag than the curved unarmoured one.
YES!
Both of these planes are easy on the eyes.
Fascinating info and comparisons between the two
As an Australian i like both and wish i saw a P-38L in the same markings and silver as our Mossies and Mustangs
Also i think ive seen Spacers work on Tex Talks Battletech Seies of Video Doco/Essays
Fascinating comparison - thanks.
The Mosquito did have amazing bombing accuracy..... At low level, with some of the best crews in the RAF specifically trained for that particular role!!
In other words it was largely the skill and training of a very specialist crew in a very specialist role that gave the Mosquito its famed bombing accuracy.
Even the famed Pathfinders, which marked targets for the following bomber streams during RAF night bombing raids were only accurate *in comparison* to the standard accuracy of the bombers. And again, those Pathfinder aircraft had exceptionally highly trained crews, including the best bomb aimers in the RAF....
I love the Mozzie, and as a Brit it has a special place in my heart, however its famed accuracy has, like many wartime myths (cough cough, Norden bombsight, cough cough), been somewhat... exaggerated....
And yes, that is a little British understatement there. Got to have some right? Its one of the things we are know for after all1
Keep the great artwork coming ! Thanks !
Very thorough and interesting.
Loving the artwork
If everyone was like me, Greg would have the world's largest youtube channel.
So the De Havilland had better range and better navigational tech.
I didn't know that.
I just thought it was a really cool wooden plane that beat the odds.
Thanks for posting this.
Hello Greg - I would very much a mug with a
"Greg taught me everything I know" sign and
pictures of various details like manifold pressure gauges, the P-47 throttle quadrant and the like.
Not sure you would sell something like that due to your modesty, but it would depict the rough truth about us regular viewers of this channel. (typo corrected - maybe it ought to end with ", except grammar")
Basically it comes down to what you need done which is the better fighter/bomber. Both were solid planes overall.
One plane that I think makes an interesting comparison with these two is the P1Y Ginga. It was mostly a pure light bomber, but night fighter variants were made, and its speed and maneuverability made it better than your average light bomber in that role. It had a long range and could do dive bombing, increasing it accuracy compared to level bombing. It could also do torpedo bombing, though it's unclear if the bomb bay doors had to be removed to fit them or not. Definitely even further on the bomber end of the spectrum than even the Mosquito, but it is still an interesting reference in a few areas.
20:55 Greg, Europe was probably unaware of this. Out in the Pacific, Charles Lindburg was getting extensive enhancements to the P-38 range. In Barrett Tillman's book "Corsair" it comes up because Lindburg did the same thing with the Marines. Nothing terribly outrageous was done to accomplish this. Lindburg simply looked up the manufactured spec of manifold pressure, and discovered the pilots were trained to operate quite a bit under it. The pilots were convinced the engines would seize up until he demonstrated his point. He also worked out some dive-bombing techniques for the Corsair. Do you have any information/insights to confirm this?
Yes, and that's basically true. No it wasn't being done in Europe or anywhere in 1942-1943.
I would love you to do a review of the Bristol Beaufighter. Just discovered your channel and loving the content so far.
I already did that. ruclips.net/video/YFDOGwptxOg/видео.html
Thanks Greg
Loving this comparison series. It would be interesting to see another of your favorite airplanes, the Beaufighter, in this comparison. I suspect it may be off chart low on airspeed.
Beaufighter vs. A-20 and probably some Soviet or Japanese plane thrown into the mix.
Hey greg, really enjoyed your videos on p47 range, any possibility of doing that with the p38 in the eto/pto ? Thanks
Fun! Two GREAT aircraft.
Apologies if this is noted elsewhere... "Mosquito: Under the Radar " by Rowland White is an excellent account of the Copenhagen and other raids flown by Mossie crews. By the way, all of White's books are excellent. Read them all in the last two months.
WWII US Bombers has a good video explaining how a drift meter was used. I can’t seem to share the link, but WWII US Bombers drift meter should get you there.
As always, excellent work Greg.
Did they talk about it with respect to the Mosquito? I talked about it much earlier as well, but not in a Mosquito discussion .
Absolutely excellent channel that, highly recommended for the fact and document based discussions. Just like here. 🙂
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles it was about the B 17’s scope. He’s generally pretty focused on his channel’s named topic. But he has an actual drift meter and a set up that shows how it was used.
It’s a simple but very effective demonstration.
I just love your real deep dive reviews, opens up eyes on topics very much. One question: I know they came later - with the J and L models - but the Droopsnoot and Pathfinders usage with conventional P-38s would be a good topic too. Why and how were they used and how effective or in effective were they?
Great video, thank you 🙂
A dozen (heck, a hundred) thumbs up!! 😎
Thanks Greg.
I’m a die hard mosquito fan, but goddamn the p-38 just looks like a beast of an aircraft
Nice to hear I don't need to go to Ned Flanders Leftorium to get a nice mug.
Can't imagine a 6 pounder on a P-38.
👍👍 Thank you Greg, great work - as always.
🦘
11:45 had the privilege of seeing and touring the inside of this Texas Raiders B-17 in 2021 at Tyler Pounds Field.
Potential future subject for you - what was the Mosquito of 1940?
The RAF hoped it was the Bristol Blenheim (or even the Fairey Battle)
It was actually the Martin Maryland
Good on ya’, mate.
Greg coming to RUclips with math and facts. Ohh boy....👨🏻🏫
Great video, thanks Greg!
I couldn’t believe all the trolls & fanboys on the prior video that seriously claimed the mosquito was effectively a “smart weapon” with super accuracy that could have achieved with less bombs what heavies like the b17 & Lancaster did for the 8th Air Force & bomber command in an alternative history but this wasn’t done due to stupidity or conspiracy..
Greg will you make a video on the 6 pounder equipped Mosquito?
But if he shakes the video about will it miss fire?
Without bias between the two but will comment on the Mosquito. Adaption to perform specific missions: Highball bomber, as mentioned in the comments, an anti ship/sub using a very effective, Molins Airborne 6 pounder (57mm) class M gun firing (2950 ft/sec) one shell just under a second cyclic rate without ever damaging the mounting structure of the planes fitted with it. 900lbs of armour fitted and the inherent strength of the airframe gave them better survivability. Experiments were conducted to consider a 94mm cannon the year before, successful tested after the war ended. A mosquito pilot interview recounted an interdiction flight were they successfully skipped bombed into the entrance of a train tunnel without the aid of practicing for the attempt. The bomb bay made it so the two bombs had a better chance of going into the opening.
Rockets; P-38 10 x M8s with a 4.3 lb warhead. Mosquito 8 x a choice of multiples the largest a 60 lb warhead.
As always, a concise explanation, Greg.
Thanks, but all those things you mentioned came later. This is a comparison of the P-38G and FB VI from mid 1942 to mid 1943. That's important to keep in mind. If we go past mid 1943 we have to use the P-38J or later and that makes the comparison quite lopsided.
The Highball was never used, it wasn't even a good idea and thank God they figured that out before they tried to use it, by the time it would have been at it's release point it'd already be inside of a ships innermost ring of air defense guns which means there's a good chance none of them would have even made it to the release point, the aircraft having to fly at a perfectly straight course while lining up coupled with the reduced speed for release is the kind of thing AA gunners dream about, not to mention attacking fighter's, as many torpedo planes found out during the war the last place you want to be when fighter's attack you is at reduced speed that close to the water, you can't maneuver when attacked.
Barnes' bouncing bomb worked initially on dams because they were lightly defended and the Germans really didn't forsee them being targeted because of the problems that had to be overcome but once the cat was out of the bag and they beefed up the defenses around dams it wasn't going to work again their and never would have in the first place with parked battleships because they already knew that'd be a target and had serious defensive rings around them.
Bombing them from altitude with those massive bombs was the way to do that and is exactly what they realized before hand, the Highball process never was fully resolved of all of it's issues anyway, it was something they spent a lot of time and money on that never got used.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles 'What was the best fighter bomber of the second world war?' was the first question asked. Comparing the two specific aircraft was not my goal to draw an opinion for comment. The built in potential Mosquitos had for future adaption was more the point I was making.
My favourite military aeroplane is the Douglas Skyraider, partly due to its incredible adaptability.
The Mosquito does get more praise than it deserves a lot of the time so quality analysis such as yours help keep historical accuracy, accurate.
@@dukecraig2402 Thanks for commenting. To clarify. My original comment was in regard to how the Mosquito could be experimented with and adapted to perform specific missions. I was not suggesting the Highball was successful.
@@SEMJW
Any aircraft could and plenty did have specialized versions of them built, look at how many versions of the B25 there was that were adapted to specialized roles, that's not something unique to the Mosquito, I don't know why everyone thinks it is, most likely because most people don't know it was built in dedicated versions and think it was a single model that could be reconfigured on the ground and perform all those different roles, I see it in comments all the time, the magical airplane that could be loaded with 4,000 lbs of bombs and dogfight it's way to and from targets all the way to Berlin and back, ah, no, that's not how it worked, but people like to take the top speed of the fighter variant, the all in bomb load of the bomber version, the range of one with a reduced bomb load because it has auxiliary fuel tanks in half it's bomb bay, and the altitude of the PR variant and claim it's a single model that could hit all those different performance parameters all at the same time, oh yea and it didn't need escorted on bombing mission's because it's also a fighter, ah, yea, they were escorted on mission's, by more fighter's than there'd be Mosquito's on the mission, Greg mentioned the mission in March of 45, it was Operation Carthage and 18 Mosquito's were escorted by 30 Mustang's, and even then nearly ¼ of them were shot down, look up any Mosquito bombing mission and that's about the ratio of escorts needed because unarmed bomb laden aircraft aren't about to dogfight.