Question on Mosquito Paint Scheme

[Graham Boak]

A near miss from a 500lb bomb causes more damage than a similar from a 250lb - the larger amount of explosive causes more damage.  of course.  So the same applies even more to a 60lb warhead - so what?   A direct hit from a 25lb warhead will severely damage a ship and despite its individual inaccuracy demonstrated its success in action.  What is the individual accuracy of a 250 lb bomb?  Historically they were of pretty feeble effectiveness against ships.   Ask the reports from surviving crews of Blenheims on Channel Stop operations.  Years of attacks by Coastal Command with bombs and torpedoes were of limited success - it is results that matter not theoretical arguments.

 

The effectiveness of the rocket attacks in ground warfare have been continually run down by the Army and gun enthusiasts, partly because of the (granted) excessive claims made by the Typhoon pilots but largely it seems on the results of a survey carried out some time after the Normandy landings,  A survey that found only two tanks which inarguably were destroyed by rockets only, but did not consider those where the initial damage could have been done by rockets - few passing tankers would risk passing a quiet Panzer without trying an AP just to make sure.  It did not consider that tanks that had been removed before their arrival.  It did not mention those which had been too thoroughly destroyed to be able to tell the cause.  It concentrated on the effect on major AFVs, forgetting that in a concentrated attack (or indeed retreat such as Falaise), a fighter carrying a spread of rockets may miss the vehicle at its aiming point but would be as likely to hit something else in its ballistic spread - or at least make the surrounding area considerably unhealthy for soldiers.  If you want numbers, then a squadron of Typhoons could fire 84 rockets - there could be a considerable ballistic spread and something would have been hit.  A kill percentage as low as 2% as appropriate for unguided missiles (and I have worked in Operational Analysis in my time) would still suggest 2 direct hits.  Using 60lb warheads (as became common) was less effective against a tank but of greater value against other targets and personnel.

 

The German Army held fast against attack from a wide range of weapons during the war, it is difficult to believe that  being attacked by a totally inaccurate weapon that had no demonstrable effect on vehicles or personnel would have been responsible for destroying their  morale.  Pull the other one.  That continued attack from fighter-bombers did crack their morale is inarguably true, but to suggest this was in the face a lack of material effect beggars belief.  British Army commanders would complain to the end of the war that their soldiers were reluctant to advance against a German fixed position before the fighter-bombers had been used.  It seems they had a better idea of the value than postwar Army analyses.  Individual Army units adopted single rocket launchers mounted on the side of their tanks, which would lack the numbers of a Typhoon squadron attack but gain in accuracy from the fixed firing point.  Surely their 75mm gun was so much more accurate as to make this futile?  After all a 75mm brick landing on you wouldn't do your morale much good either.  Yet apparently not.

 

In the end, it wouldn't matter if the effect was more psychological than material.  It worked, and that's what mattered.  Other weapons did not do the job as well, however they measured up on paper.

[stever219]

27 minutes ago, Blimpyboy said:

Not really, it’s a tactical principal. And training.

 

Assuming a direct hit..,

If you have a fore-and-aft hit, you run through more compartments along the length of the vessel. Plus, you only face the defences from a very small cross section of the ship.

If you have a beam-on hit, your weapon only runs the width of the ship (less straight-line real estate and therefore less compartments/‘stuff’, and you face all the defences along one whole side of the vessel.

 

Also (assuming a direct hit along your axis of approach), a salvo along the ship’s longitudinal axis has a greater probability of multiple hits. Even multiple near misses that cause damage will hopefully be achieved along the target’s length.

 

A salvo against the beam generally results in less munitions hitting the ship, or even missing close enough to do damage. Unless, of course, you adopt a straight-in approach, which is generally frowned upon, to avoid flying into your target!

 

Of course, always hitting what you aim at and steer against is the bigger question...

How much energy do you think an RP has?  Even though most ship’ bulkheads were not particularly thick one or at most two might be breached by an RP in a smaller ship provided that the warhead hadn’t detonated on impact.  Factor in any cargo, machinery and other assorted gubbins in the way and your RP is going to encounter a lot of energy-sapping resistance.

 

The Mosquito has a span of just over 54 feet, the RP rails are about 1/6 of that in from the tips.  Assuming an incredibly accurate  head-on attack on a ship with a beam of fifty feet all eight RPs might score hits, although the outboard pair might just as well ricochet off the sides due to the shallow pact angle.  The first things they’re going to encounter are, in no particular order, the crew accommodation, the chain lockers, ships’ stores, collision bulkhead and forward hold.  If, as I said above, the warheads haven’t detonated (unlikely) by the time they’ve penetrated that lot they are going to have lost most, if not all, of their energy and at that point the only way they are going is downwards at considerably totally reduced forward speed.

 

A head-on pass will require the aircraft either to break away to one side or the other of the target or to overfly its entire length or to fly alongside its entire length, giving defending gunners plenty of opportunity to have a go whereas a beam attack will give a rapidly approaching and then rapidly receding target.

 

A beam attack on a 450 foot long ship should result in all RPs hitting the target: ships of the era in question rarely had spaces more than 50 feet long fore and aft so it’s likely that any breaches of the hull would straddle at least one bulkhead.  If any of the compartments breached included engine room, boiler room and/or bunkers, far more likely as the pilots would probably aim for the middle of the ship to ensure a hit, the outlook for the ship and crew is going to be grim.  During the approach and escape the attacking aircraft will present the lowest cross section to the defending gunners and be over or alongside the target for the shortest possible time.

[EwenS]

The best way to sink a ship or a submarine is not so much to to hit something above water, it is to let the water in from below water. That was why the torpedo was so popular as an anti ship weapon. The rocket with the 60lb head was only effective against that part of the ship above water. When it came to the 3" RP with the 25lb solid head:-

 

"It was found, purely by accident, that a near miss at a shallow angle would curve upward to puncture the submarine's hull. The ideal aiming point was established as 60ft short of the target, and the 25lb armour- piercing warhead was used." From U-boat net. Applies equally to sinking ships. With a bit of luck it goes in one side and continues out the other.

 

From "A Separate Little War" Sqn Ldr Bill Clayton-Graham DFC, a pilot in the Banff Wing, was quoted

"Normally when making an attack on shipping, the dive at 45 degrees was started at 2000 feet, opening up with machine guns as sighters at about 1500 to 1000 feet. Hopefully the cannons were to knock out the enemy's guns, bridge and so forth, and we then fired the rocket projectiles (four under each wing) at about 500 feet. These were set to form a pattern spread on impact, so that if aimed correctly about half hit the target above the waterline, the other four under shooting slightly to hit below the waterline...."

So in a sense they were aiming to miss, but just by the right amount.

 

As for the damage inflicted by a 250lb bomb (40-140lb of explosive depending on type) it contained less explosive than a 250lb depth charge (Mk.XI had 170lb of Torpex as a filling). Against a submarine the lethal radius of the depth charge was about 10ft with 33ft to disable it.  So they needed to be dropped close to the target to be effective. It would be the same with a bomb against a ship. And your bomb needs fused to go off in the water not on contact with the surface.

Edited July 25, 2020 by EwenS

[11bravo]

3 hours ago, stever219 said:

Underwater impacts by RPs could be devastating; remember the Dambusters?  The water behind the exploding RP acts as a tamper, directing the blast forwards much like a modern shaped charge, cutting a hole in the hull and then allowing the pressure of the water to amplify the damage.  There are many instances of ships being lost because, having been holed below the waterline, bulkheads have collapsed because the ship’s remained under way long enough to overload the bulkheads.

Just a point of clarification - within a very short time, the RAF stopped using RP's with explosive warheads (they found that they only did minimal damage to the structure of the ship and practically none below the waterline) and then pretty much exclusively used 25lb solid shot RP's.   These were aimed just below the waterline of the targeted vessel.  They wouldn't leave a huge hole in it's side but a 2" hole, 4' below the water line will certainly cause serious flooding over a short time. Especially if the RP continued through the ship and passed out through the opposite side. 

[Selwyn]

54 minutes ago, 11bravo said:

Just a point of clarification - within a very short time, the RAF stopped using RP's with explosive warheads (they found that they only did minimal damage to the structure of the ship and practically none below the waterline) and then pretty much exclusively used 25lb solid shot RP's.   These were aimed just below the waterline of the targeted vessel.  They wouldn't leave a huge hole in it's side but a 2" hole, 4' below the water line will certainly cause serious flooding over a short time. Especially if the RP continued through the ship and passed out through the opposite side. 

Not quite right. The RAF used explosive warheads extensively in WW2 and then on into the 1960's!

Coastal command used the solid shot a lot for the purpose above,  and the Royal Navy used solid shot against surfaced submarines as it was paticularly effective against pressure hulls. One hole and you couldn't submerge - game over!

 

Selwyn

[11bravo]

2 minutes ago, Selwyn said:

Not quite right. The RAF used explosive warheads extensively in WW2 and then on into the 1960's!

Coastal command used the solid shot a lot for the purpose above,  and the Royal Navy used solid shot against surfaced submarines as it was paticularly effective against pressure hulls. One hole and you couldn't submerge - game over!

 

Selwyn

Sorry, my bad and you are quite correct.   I should have stated that this was in the context of Strike Wing Mosquitoes (no idea if the Beauforts also followed this example or not). 

 

John

[dogsbody]

5 hours ago, Blimpyboy said:

Um, the underwater shock and bubble effects of 250 lb of HE can have some pretty nasty effects on parts of a large vessel - depending on the miss distance, an underwater explosion can cause more damage than a direct hit. 

 

Only if the bomb is fitted with a sensitive enough fuse that would set off the bomb when it hit the water. Otherwise, said bomb will just sink to the bottom. If the ship happens to be sailing through deep water, if the bomb does go off when it hits bottom, it would have little to no effect on the ship. The may even have sailed beyond any blast effect by then.

 

 

 

Chris

[SafetyDad]

I'm not a Mod, but hasn't this thread wandered off-track into a bit of a cul-de-sac?

 

The OP asked about Mosquito paint schemes...

 

SD

 

 

[11bravo]

1 hour ago, SafetyDad said:

I'm not a Mod, but hasn't this thread wandered off-track into a bit of a cul-de-sac?

 

The OP asked about Mosquito paint schemes...

 

SD

 

 

As the OP, I just want to state that I’m fine with a bit of thread drift.   I’ve learned a great deal and hope the rest of you guys don’t find this too upsetting!  

[Blimpyboy]

6 hours ago, EwenS said:

As for the damage inflicted by a 250lb bomb (40-140lb of explosive depending on type) it contained less explosive than a 250lb depth charge (Mk.XI had 170lb of Torpex as a filling)

Yeah, what I should have said as a better comparator was 250 lb of explosive.

[Blimpyboy]

3 hours ago, dogsbody said:

Only if the bomb is fitted with a sensitive enough fuse that would set off the bomb when it hit the water.

Depending on the fusing, attitude and deceleration of the impact, most bombs would/should go off when hitting the water. Unless you were set up for a skip-bombing effect...

[Blimpyboy]

7 hours ago, EwenS said:

So they needed to be dropped close to the target to be effective. It would be the same with a bomb against a ship. And your bomb needs fused to go off in the water not on contact with the surface.

And in the context of an anti-shipping strike by Mossies (or ‘Mozzies’ as my Australian-influenced kids say) I would indeed expect near misses that would be likely to induce a whipping effect on (and attendant damage to) the target ship.

I can’t recall the instantaneous/delay capabilities of British bomb fuzes, but one could expect a measure of sub-surface initiation and attendant cavitation, especially if you had a SAP bomb or a delay setting to accommodate ship penetration.

 

From:

https://maritime.org/doc/dc/part5.htm

16-20. Underwater explosion damage-small ships. In the case of auxiliaries, cruisers, destroyers and other small ships, underwater explosions in the midship region have ruptured a large proportion of the principal strength members. Following extensive damage to the major strength members ships of this type may break up, unless the strength of fractured members can be replaced before the vessel is subjected to the action of heavy seas.

If the structural damage is severe, partial restoration of the main strength members may be necessary before proceeding far (and then only at reduced speeds) even with a calm sea and when destination is not too far away. Such repairs if not practicable underway can frequently be accomplished at advanced bases.

16-21. Explosions at bow or stern of small ships. Underwater explosions at either the bow or stern of a slender, small ship, such as a destroyer or destroyer escort, usually cause local destruction which is intense, but neither widespread nor particularly serious. However, the effect of such an explosion is to shake this type of vessel like a whip. Waves of flexural vibration pass down the length of the hull, producing stresses like those in hogging and sagging but of shorter duration and of greater intensity. The result, although not usually obvious, can be serious. It consists of compression failures in the midship region, evident in wrinkled deck plating, wrinkled shell plating, buckled longitudinal girders, and either buckling, laying over of flanges, wrinkling, or other failure of any of the members in the waist of the ship that contribute to her longitudinal strength. Such failures may be hidden from sight below the waterline, under boilers, behind stores and equipment, or beneath the surface of subsequent leakage water. It is a feature of compression members that once buckled they can never again develop even a fraction of their original strength.

 

Apologies for the multiple replies, I seem to have lost the part of my memory that remembers how to put several quotes in a single response. Senility...

Edited July 25, 2020 by Blimpyboy

[Blimpyboy]

6 hours ago, EwenS said:

The best way to sink a ship or a submarine is not so much to to hit something above water, it is to let the water in from below water.

Heh! I do recall a facetious comment along the lines of ‘torpedoes sink ships by letting the water in whereas bombs just let the air in’!

[Blimpyboy]

7 hours ago, stever219 said:

Assuming an incredibly accurate  head-on attack on a ship

Which is why you run your aiming line diagonally through the longitudinal axis of the target - to increase your P-hit(s).

 

7 hours ago, stever219 said:

During the approach and escape the attacking aircraft will present the lowest cross section to the defending gunners and be over or alongside the target for the shortest possible time.

Correct, and from a longitudinal approach, you only have the chaps at one end seeing and shooting at you at any one time (unless there’s no superstructure). Beam-on, the full length of the ship is able to see and shoot at you all at once.

Approach is the worst time to be engaged; it’s very difficult for the ship’s defences to visually acquire, slew, aim and hit a receding aircraft that has just flashed past at minimal altitude - remember, the superstructure prevents them from determining your approach and seeing you until you’re hightailing it out of there.

Edited July 25, 2020 by Blimpyboy

[Blimpyboy]

8 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Historically they were of pretty feeble effectiveness against ships.   Ask the reports from surviving crews of Blenheims on Channel Stop operations.  Years of attacks by Coastal Command with bombs and torpedoes were of limited success - it is results that matter not theoretical arguments.

I couldn’t agree more.

See my posts about material effects vice psychological effects. The totality is what counts - to use the Typhoon-fired RP/anti-armour studies as a case in point: they destroyed a negligible number of tanks, but, what is often overlooked is the ‘panic’ effect on columns, which did more to stymie the deployment and use of armour, instead of destroying it outright en-masse. In this sense, a commander would still order such a strike, knowing that it will still have a beneficial result.

Also, please note my post about being restricted to using the limited array of weapons one has to hand - sadly , there was no real alternative weapon at the time.

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by Blimpyboy

[Blimpyboy]

8 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The German Army held fast against attack from a wide range of weapons during the war, it is difficult to believe that  being attacked by a totally inaccurate weapon that had no demonstrable effect on vehicles or personnel would have been responsible for destroying their  morale.

Not quite correct - the demoralising effects of attacks using rockets, despite their inaccuracy is very well documented (predominantly in the ground campaigns).

The disruption caused by - and fear of - the overall attack, while not destroying many tanks, did much more to prevent the timely resupply and deployment of armour to where it was needed (again, this relates to the ground war - ships are so much more vulnerable to damage).

 

No one is saying they were useless - please remember, it was a remark on the aero-ballistic qualities of one weapon, not it’s total effect.

Edited July 25, 2020 by Blimpyboy

[Blimpyboy]

 

If I may reiterate; my initial comment purely relates to the poor accuracy and precision of RPs, especially in the dual configuration with fins having been removed.

I do not disagree that all other contemporaneous weapons had similar (or worse) inherent inaccuracies, nor is it disparaging of the need to prosecute the war with all means then at the disposal of the combatants (regardless of the totality of their effects).

Also, it in no way renders the efforts of the combatants as trivial or useless, nor does it diminish the pride and esteem in which they are held.

 

The drawing of a link between my initial post and any of these aspects is, I presume, poor articulation on my part, and unintended misinterpretation or misunderstanding from all protagonists (self included).

 

 

Perhaps, to pour oil on troubled waters, and to soothed jangled nerves, the RP issue can best be summed up in this more positive light (from Wing Commander David Herriot in the conclusion to A History of Air-to-Surface Rocket Systems) :

“From a positive stand-point, however, rockets are far less complicated than guns and do not suffer from issues such as recoil or the disposal of spent cartridges. The effect of the 60 lb warhead had a devastating impact on the morale of opposing troops. Post strike intelligence reports during WW II indicated that many enemy vehicles were abandoned intact or with superficial damage in the face of a
probable rocket attack by Allied aircraft. So, notwithstanding the
problems of aiming and the accuracy of delivery, it is evident that the mere prospect of a salvo of rockets tends to have a demoralising effect on the enemy and, from that point alone, rockets are a valuable weapon to have in one’s arsenal.”

 

 

 

Let’s just be friends.

Edited July 25, 2020 by Blimpyboy

[John Thompson]

58 minutes ago, Blimpyboy said:

 

it is evident that the mere prospect of a salvo of rockets tends to have a demoralising effect on the enemy

 

 

John

[mike romeo]

@Blimpyboy

 

Thanks for providing your point of view, and for your respectful responses to other responders.

 

Regards

 

Martin

[Blimpyboy]

20 hours ago, mike romeo said:

 

Thanks for providing your point of view, and for your respectful responses to other responders.

Hiya!

Hey, no sweat.

 

 

Edited July 30, 2020 by Blimpyboy
For some reason, I mistook Mike Romeo for the O/P (11bravo) and thought that he was  making a model Mosquito. I blame senility. Again. Sigh

[Blimpyboy]

On 7/26/2020 at 9:37 AM, John Thompson said:

 

I like the confidently smug look on Mr. Jones’ face!

[11bravo]

I'm guessing this thread has pretty much run it's course but before it fades away, I'll just ask that if any of you guys have other pictures (color or B&W) that show weathered EDSG Mosquitoes, please feel free to post them.  I'm building a No. 333 bird from Banff and would love to get some weathering examples.

 

Regards,

 

John

[Blimpyboy]

https://m.facebook.com/peoplesmosquito/photos/banff-strike-wing-colour-image-1944-but-who-is-the-wing-co/523094251070244/?locale=en_GB

 

 

Edited July 31, 2020 by Blimpyboy

[Crimea River]

[11bravo]

On 7/24/2020 at 8:46 AM, johnny akes said:

Back to the o/p, I don’t think it’s bare metal where the flame suppressor was removed but the original camouflage scheme?

 

Found these pictures on a FB page.  Not the same aircraft but shows what it looked like when the exhaust suppressor was removed.   Definitely unfinished metal here, they never primed or painted this area when it was built.   For my 32nd kit, Tamiya provides a pretty realistic decal to represent this.  Typical of their attention to detail, given that this would be a bit challenging to mask and paint. 

 

Edited August 1, 2020 by 11bravo