|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#31
April 28th 04, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
The Mosquitos of no 2 Group usually used the Mk III Low-Level bomb sight which was designed for use below 1000ft and mostly used by coastal command Keith How did this work? How was altitude maintained? how was it entered into the bombsight? Was it a computing bombsight? From what I recall the bombsight was uusually used in attacks at a fixed height of around 300ft , the bomb aimer dialled in a spacing for the stick of bombs and it released them at the correct intervals. Keith 
|
|
#33
May 1st 04, 01:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Eunometic wrote:
"Richard Brooks" wrote in message ... Eunometic wrote: nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message ... I have tracked down and interviewed ~2 dozen Mosquito airmen and read most of the available works about them - first I have heard this. One hundred knots over the target would have been absolute suicide. TV strikes again; within a couple of years, folks will all "agree" that this was a fact. :\ A dozen agincourt longbowmen with fire arrows could have brought down the wooden wonder at that speed. How exactly did they aim the bombs? We'd just had a documentary about it on Channel 5 in the UK, just last week. The narrator said they just used their judgement. I can't remember whether I recorded it but I'll look through my tapes to check, No one seems to know for sure do they? The task of bomb aiming at low level must have been formidable. For instance if a bombsight was used it would need to know altitude above ground. But how? A radio altimeter feeding into a computing bombsight would be maybe 30ft. A barometric device about the same but would need to also need to know the altitude above sea level which adds another source of error. Maybe there more accurate devices but I don't think so. In an attack at 100ft a 50ft errror would produce a big error in bomb hit: about 30/100 = 50% In an attack at 8000 ft that is 30/8000 or about 0.4% The most accurate method of attack I think of is the glide/slide bombing using a computing bombsight (eg the Stuvi of the Ju 88 and I think some of the British sights could work in a dive) but that still isn't a low level attack whuch could get a bomb within 10 meters quite with good consistantly. I recall reading about Fw 190 pilots on the Eastern front attacking T34 tanks simply by flying the nose over the tank and releasing a bomb to slide along the steppe. It was regarded as accurate method. So I suspect they relied to a certain extent on the bomb sliding along the ground. The accuracy required would be greatly reduced. I think it was down to dropping and keeping at least one finger in one ear! It was remarkable that they decided to take a cameraman along to film the low level raid, which seemed to go against the fact that the British seemed a bit dubious about cameras popping off everywhere (all "hush, hush" and that) unlike our American Allies. Richard.
|
|
#34
May 1st 04, 07:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#35
May 1st 04, 08:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Dave Eadsforth
writes In article , Richard Brooks richardbr writes Eunometic wrote: "Richard Brooks" wrote in message ... SNIP lots I recall reading about Fw 190 pilots on the Eastern front attacking T34 tanks simply by flying the nose over the tank and releasing a bomb to slide along the steppe. It was regarded as accurate method. So I suspect they relied to a certain extent on the bomb sliding along the ground. The accuracy required would be greatly reduced. I think it was down to dropping and keeping at least one finger in one ear! It was remarkable that they decided to take a cameraman along to film the low level raid, which seemed to go against the fact that the British seemed a bit dubious about cameras popping off everywhere (all "hush, hush" and that) unlike our American Allies. Richard. I suspect that the RAF brass regarded the Amiens raid as (quite rightly) a unique effort to date, and worthy of recording. It was of course the RAF film unit, subject to normal secrecy conditions. And the cameraman was very likely to return by virtue of the fact he was in a Mossie (must have been a glazed nose variant - and with no armament or ordnance, so freaking fast...) I think that we Brits have been too cautious about recording our efforts. We have a duty to future generations to show how things were, and I can only applaud the US for having put, for instance, Hollywood directors on B17s to record it all - and in colour! Cheers, Dave The Copenhagen(?) attack was also filmed, or at least part of the trip. Mossies crossing the North Sea at near wavetop height, and flying over Denmark just above the rooftops. Awesome, and extremely courageous. -- Peter Ying tong iddle-i po!
|
|
#36
May 1st 04, 07:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Peter Twydell
writes In article , Dave Eadsforth writes In article , Richard Brooks richardbr writes Eunometic wrote: "Richard Brooks" wrote in message ... SNIP lots I recall reading about Fw 190 pilots on the Eastern front attacking T34 tanks simply by flying the nose over the tank and releasing a bomb to slide along the steppe. It was regarded as accurate method. So I suspect they relied to a certain extent on the bomb sliding along the ground. The accuracy required would be greatly reduced. I think it was down to dropping and keeping at least one finger in one ear! It was remarkable that they decided to take a cameraman along to film the low level raid, which seemed to go against the fact that the British seemed a bit dubious about cameras popping off everywhere (all "hush, hush" and that) unlike our American Allies. Richard. I suspect that the RAF brass regarded the Amiens raid as (quite rightly) a unique effort to date, and worthy of recording. It was of course the RAF film unit, subject to normal secrecy conditions. And the cameraman was very likely to return by virtue of the fact he was in a Mossie (must have been a glazed nose variant - and with no armament or ordnance, so freaking fast...) I think that we Brits have been too cautious about recording our efforts. We have a duty to future generations to show how things were, and I can only applaud the US for having put, for instance, Hollywood directors on B17s to record it all - and in colour! Cheers, Dave The Copenhagen(?) attack was also filmed, or at least part of the trip. Mossies crossing the North Sea at near wavetop height, and flying over Denmark just above the rooftops. Awesome, and extremely courageous. I remember seeing that footage a couple of times - awesome is the word. Cheers, Dave -- Dave Eadsforth
|
|
#37
May 2nd 04, 09:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Eadsforth wrote:
In article , Richard Brooks richardbr writes Eunometic wrote: "Richard Brooks" wrote in message ... SNIP lots [and then some] I suspect that the RAF brass regarded the Amiens raid as (quite rightly) a unique effort to date, and worthy of recording. It was of course the RAF film unit, subject to normal secrecy conditions. And the cameraman was very likely to return by virtue of the fact he was in a Mossie (must have been a glazed nose variant - and with no armament or ordnance, so freaking fast...) I think that we Brits have been too cautious about recording our efforts. We have a duty to future generations to show how things were, and I can only applaud the US for having put, for instance, Hollywood directors on B17s to record it all - and in colour! Cheers, Dave But at least our gallant serving men and women made up for it with their own private collections. All hail the box Brownie! Most of those glossy books we own would have been text only. Richard.
|
|
#38
May 2nd 04, 11:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Richard Brooks
writes Dave Eadsforth wrote: In article , Richard Brooks richardbr writes Eunometic wrote: "Richard Brooks" wrote in message ... SNIP lots [and then some] I suspect that the RAF brass regarded the Amiens raid as (quite rightly) a unique effort to date, and worthy of recording. It was of course the RAF film unit, subject to normal secrecy conditions. And the cameraman was very likely to return by virtue of the fact he was in a Mossie (must have been a glazed nose variant - and with no armament or ordnance, so freaking fast...) I think that we Brits have been too cautious about recording our efforts. We have a duty to future generations to show how things were, and I can only applaud the US for having put, for instance, Hollywood directors on B17s to record it all - and in colour! Cheers, Dave But at least our gallant serving men and women made up for it with their own private collections. All hail the box Brownie! Most of those glossy books we own would have been text only. Richard. Yup, and more revealing snaps were often sneaked by the little Kodak 'Bantam' 828 concertina front camera, which could fit a tunic pocket, and was less likely to be snatched by a suspicious Snowdrop. And, in recent years, some books have come out which could not have been published just post-war. 'The Forbidden Diaries' by John Spencer, a B-24 navigator, was a particularly fascinating read. Cheers, Dave -- Dave Eadsforth
|
|
#39
May 2nd 04, 07:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message , Dave Eadsforth
writes In article , Richard Brooks writes Dave Eadsforth wrote: In article , Richard Brooks richardbr writes Eunometic wrote: "Richard Brooks" wrote in message ... SNIP lots [and then some] I suspect that the RAF brass regarded the Amiens raid as (quite rightly) a unique effort to date, and worthy of recording. It was of course the RAF film unit, subject to normal secrecy conditions. And the cameraman was very likely to return by virtue of the fact he was in a Mossie (must have been a glazed nose variant - and with no armament or ordnance, so freaking fast...) I've had another look at my recording of the Amiens raid. The film appears to have been taken from the navigator's seat, judging by the bits of the cockpit frames that appear. There is also a shot of the starboard wing and engine looking along the top surface. Perhaps the navigator was given a camera and told to take what he could when he could. Mike -- M.J.Powell
|
|
#40
May 2nd 04, 11:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
M. J. Powell wrote:
In message , Dave Eadsforth writes In article , Richard Brooks writes Dave Eadsforth wrote: In article , Richard Brooks richardbr writes Eunometic wrote: "Richard Brooks" wrote in message ... SNIP lots [and then some] I suspect that the RAF brass regarded the Amiens raid as (quite rightly) a unique effort to date, and worthy of recording. It was of course the RAF film unit, subject to normal secrecy conditions. And the cameraman was very likely to return by virtue of the fact he was in a Mossie (must have been a glazed nose variant - and with no armament or ordnance, so freaking fast...) I've had another look at my recording of the Amiens raid. The film appears to have been taken from the navigator's seat, judging by the bits of the cockpit frames that appear. There is also a shot of the starboard wing and engine looking along the top surface. Perhaps the navigator was given a camera and told to take what he could when he could. Mike I think you're right as there is some great air to air footage across the starboard wing too! Sadly a lot of the old documentary footage and snaps held by next of kin just gets thrown on the bonfire unless someone has the foresight to grab some of it. I remember as a kid, breaking into my fathers bureau (normal for a child) and seeing photographs of carrier life possibly on either Courageous or Indomitable carriers, photos of aircraft nose down on the deck etc. Richard.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
